400 Responses to Photo Safari

  1. Gina says:

    Hello Amanda, just sending you this article written by an Italian journalist, Francesco Luna, one of the few with the courage to stand up for TRUTH.
    Be well; sending loving thoughts your way always. g

    Francesco Luna
    AMANDA E RAFFAELE, SETTE ANNI DI INGIUSTIZIA

    Il 2 novembre 2007 era una mattina limpida e luminosa come oggi. Amanda Knox aveva vent’anni ed era felice, mentre attraversava piazza Grimana e arrivava in via della Pergola, a Perugia. Aveva lasciato a letto ancora addormentato il suo nuovo fidanzato, Raffaele Sollecito, nel piccolo appartamento di Corso Garibaldi e stava tornando nella villetta isolata che condivideva con le sue amiche Meredith, Filomena e Laura. Non sapeva, la giovane americana di Seattle, in Italia da poco più di un mese, che di lì a poco sarebbe entrata in un tunnel dell’orrore, fatto di sangue, accuse assurde, prove fasulle, violenze, pressioni psicologiche, inganni, linciaggi mediatici, anni di carcere, condanne, assoluzioni e ancora condanne. Non immaginava che anche il povero, ignaro Raffaele stava per finire con lei in quella morsa micidiale.

    La storia mediatico giudiziaria dell’omicidio della povera Meredith Kercher e della condanna di Amanda Knox e Raffaele Sollecito è una vergogna per la giustizia italiana e una pagina nera per la stampa italiana e inglese. Raramente in un Paese civile si sono visti tanti errori, tante prepotenze, tanti abusi, tante falsità passate ai media e pubblicate senza il minimo filtro critico. Due ragazzi normali sono stati dipinti come persone spregevoli, condannati mediaticamente, incastrati da prove inesistenti e sbattuti in galera per quattro anni come assassini. Solo una sentenza coraggiosa, emessa nel 2011 dal giudice Hellmann, ha permesso ai due sventurati di lasciare il carcere, ma il loro calvario non è finito. Con una nuova, paradossale sentenza, nella quale entrava indebitamente nel merito del processo, la Cassazione ha annullato nel 2013 l’assoluzione. E ha di fatto ordinato una nuova condanna, puntualmente servita sfidando qualsiasi logica dalla Corte d’Assise d’Appello di Firenze nel gennaio di quest’anno.

    Nel frattempo, il vero, unico assassino di Meredith, Rudy Guede, si è visto ridurre la condanna da trenta a soli sedici anni di carcere, grazie alle sue accuse contro Amanda Knox, la vera preda di questa aberrante caccia alle streghe. E grazie al suo opportunistico comportamento giudiziario, potrebbe uscire dal carcere già da quest’anno.

    L’Italia ha un’ultima chance per chiudere dignitosamente questa piccola storia ignobile. La Cassazione dovrà pronunciarsi il 25 marzo prossimo. Le premesse sono pessime, inutile nasconderlo. E’ chiaro che della verità sulla morte di Meredith Kercher importa pochissimo. Tutti sanno che a ucciderla fu solo Rudy Guede. Ciò che conta è la reputazione di un gruppo di pessimi investigatori e di molti giornalisti, che hanno rinunciato al loro dovere di critica e di verità per qualche misero scoop diffamatorio. Ma soprattutto, a questo punto c’è in ballo un sistema, che ha scelto di autoconservarsi proteggendo le carriere di poliziotti, giudici e giornalisti. Se si continuerà a negare il clamoroso errore commesso, condannando Amanda Knox e Raffaele Sollecito per un omicidio di cui non sono responsabili, si salverà forse il sistema, ma si sacrificherà la vita di due innocenti. Se si avrà il coraggio di ammettere l’errore, bisognerà forse chiedere scusa, ma avremo dimostrato di essere nonostante tutto ancora un Paese civile.

  2. Dane Russell says:

    Amanda Knox is NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT Merideth’s murderer…IT WAS RUDY GUEDE! MS. KNOX WAS FRAMED! HER CONFESSIONS AND ACCUSATIONS WERE COERCED! ITALY JUST CAN’T FACE THE MUSIC! I E-Mailed Ms. Knox offering support and encouragement, and I’m always glad to help her in anyway I can. MS. KNOX…I will ALWAYS BE HERE for you if you need help… I still care about you and will always stand by you and help you prove your innocence. And as I always say on Facebook: CANDY BARS NOT PRISON BARS FOR AMANDA KNOX!

  3. Dawn Taggblom says:

    Hi Amanda,
    I just finished reading your book and wanted to say thanks for having the courage to write it. Your optimism may have saved your life, and you are an inspiration to others. :)

  4. Wesley Price says:

    Hi Amanda,

    Perhaps I’d normally not respond to a blog post. Or, a severely mishandled story in the news. But I found some very telling inspiration in the beauty of truth when I learned about what recently happened to you and the next part of your journey. On the other hand, I also noticed that your “photo safari” was posted on my “golden” birthday on the 28th of March- so, why not a good time to say thanks! lol.

    Amanda, I studied Int’l Studies at the Jackson School at UW, as well as CHID, but that’s either here nor there. During the summer of 2007 I decided to study Turkish in Istanbul after having learned of the requirements for graduation at the Jackson School. I had been to Istanbul once before, and had plenty of incredible experiences that I wanted to revisit. Amongst many reasons why I wanted to go back, something else would also tell me that I was on the verge of a life-changing drama. That’s what life needed to show to me anyway, a challenge. More importantly, that something is how I wanted to become a better person. It became a true struggle.

    I was prepared to continue my studies in Turkish for as long as it needed after my stay over the course of the summer. But while I was living there, things couldn’t have been more exciting, and the int’l language school was simply bi-standard, and the joy was all of the cool friends that I made. Some of them older, younger, French, German, men, women, or even Greek! One of them was named Salvadore, a sixteen year old boy who had come over to visit from Florence. He seemed, much, older than 16 and to tell you the truth, haha, I’m not gay… not at all, but this guy was gorgeous, haha… there was a group of us that made laughs and traveled to the beach together, etc. it was great!

    Things were going awesome and amid so much opportunity and excitement I suffered to find the truth about myself. Nonetheless the fun still remained! Only just a few weeks in, I began to fall in love. And my own struggles within a sexually intensified personal quest, had alas been narrowed. She was very nice and terribly difficult to speak fluently with…lol, but we shared a lot in common we both believed. With such a rare experience like this, for the first time ever- It felt empowering and life-threatening at the same time. It helped me to realize how much conviction that I had as a person to feel so alive!

    Despite being briefly robbed and feeling ominously threatened for a few hours, the weeks past and I flew home according to plan. It was September 2007, the fall quarter started and I quickly needed to log into that weird website, I forget what it’s called, anyway, and get my turkish studies back on track because I knew it might require some negotiation. Which it did, but that would soon seem irrelevant.

    Perhaps I should mention though, even before leaving to go back home, there seemed to be something different going on with me. I now realize, more clearly, they were what had been some of the physical and emotional feelings toward ultimate freedom and what was going to be an answer to the suffering I had experienced. It was a new beginning to my life. These few moments before I left to go back home were fleeting, but allowed me to have a few rare glimpses inward. Although my fears received the best of me, and for my own sake, I would not end up living in Istanbul, trying to fall any deeper into love… Rather, I settled to go home to live my life and left any of the real decision-making to fleet.

    Shortly after I arrived, I figured out how to use that god-awful class catalog machine online, and negotiated my turkish. I took a quick visit to hall health for a regular check-up. Apparently, the entire time I had been traveling there was a massive, cancerous, set of tumors that were trying to kill me. All along my leg, there was a number of internalized stage 4 malignant melanoma (I think it’s the one bob marley had, i just found out a couple days ago, r.i.p.). So the very kind nurse at hall health, told me that I should be rushed into surgery before it was too late. Within a couple weeks I needed to partake in chemo and had less than 10% chance of survival. Of course, I took the rest of fall quarter off to take care of hospital and chemo stuff, but I immediately journeyed back up to Seattle from my native Hood River, OR. I started piling on the responsibilities of a full-time student in order to graduate on time and stay focused in my life.

    At that time, in my life, all that I can recall is a pursuit of freedom and all it’s greatness coupled with passion and willingness. That’s deep stuff, so I started taking a dance class to keep things moving. Along with my ever important “Task Force” for the Jackson School and another certain requisite. The 2 credit dance course gave me a full time status. Overall, I felt it was important to continue school.

    This is when the story at the time became a real issue.

    It is now January of 2008, some of my former professors were being accused of laundering for a project that helped my previous travel experiences to West Africa for six months, the president Mark Emmert was being accused of numerous ethical concerns, not to mention that your story had recently been made popular, and the University remained to be a top 5 university medical research institute of the world. I beg your pardon, but there was no further room for any error to keep Alumni support happy.

    —–

    It was the very first time that I saw this person, whom was to be the associate instructor for the dance class, that it could not have been made any more obvious she maintained special interests. Explicitly, by the way in which she immediately responded to me the very first time we met.

    I had approached her in her office, during office hours before class started, to tell her that I had recently undergone some surgery to my right leg. Furthermore, I wanted to tell her that I had recently been undergoing chemotherapy treatments. Without any hesitation, before I could even finish describing the issues of my mobility, she began yelling “get out of here!, get out of here! who are you?”, pointing me toward the exit. It was an incredible shock, compared to the rest of my other classes, professors, and classmates at the time. At no other time during the past few weeks did anyone feel the need to lunge out at me after I told them that my circumstances were indeed, life and death. Where was this coming from? It hit me like an iron fist. Over the course of the next few days, I saw this women two other times in red square and in class two other times as well. Each time, there was this huge, glazed over look in her eyes before she’d begin awkwardly telling me to stay away or in one case caught my attention first and then ran away before I could barely recognize who it was! I believe all of the incidents happened in red square, and lasted no more than 30 seconds. It was very strange, but I knew something was going to take place, in order to get things done. I was on the verge of fatal illness, and did not have very much energy. But with the energy that I did find, I was going to use to do the basic tasks of walking to class and back. Unfortunately, I did not have any time to be pursuing any associate instructors who were to be 20 years older, in any romantic way, whatsoever!

    Soon after only my second class, taking place in one of the studios of the dance building, I was called into a private meeting with the director of the department as well as an advisor to mediate issues. The private meeting was to be held in the basement of the dance hall. They were sitting calmly with pen and paper when I arrived. Not knowing or recognizing either of them, I sat and waited to hear what I was doing there. But it was clear in a matter of seconds that they did not want me to be attending the dance class or perhaps any of the university. Never receiving a clear understanding from the very brief line of questioning, they proceeded to offer me the academic credit for the course, on the grounds that I reserve my physical attendance and accept my understanding that they would be filing an official report of the accusations. This was early February 2008. The accusations were forthcoming, as it would be.

    I deeply struggled through the next few months and actually completed all of the course work and managed to stay alive despite numerous, dramatic, side effects from the chemotherapy and from the seizures that it gave me. My physical liability was obvious, but I maintained enough strength to do everything just fine.

    Without any major signs of improvement, the biggest question of all remained relevant- was I going to die? And, if I did, what were the circumstances going to be- had I suddenly become too desperate for safety, were other people going to be out of harms way? Or, was this young man, going to create a disaster and leave open to critics or the media, an ethical responsibility issue to one of the most excellent of health facilities.

    Perhaps. Looking back, with or without forgiveness, I just don’t know.

    What people involved directly or indirectly and myself included, had to accept either way is that first and foremost- he did not die and secondly- what is the best way to squash our means to a viable solution (cover up any tracks)?

    For the next two years, I would have to face legal allegations of stalking. It is a felony which places a variety of dangerous intents on someone, to criminally harm or hurt another civilian. Once again, I was shocked out of this world. Primarily because, I didn’t have enough time or energy to go around stalking people or threatening people, I was constantly tired and trying to conserve as much energy as possible. There was never, ever, any intent to “stalk” someone that I never even knew! The very first time that I saw this person, it became a primary piece of evidence in the allegations that I was trying to hurt her. I was being wrongly convicted of guilt.

    For the first time ever, I was being wrongly convicted, but I was a person of conviction. I had been determined to pursue the life that I had always dreamed and to overcome any of the small steps or challenges along the way. The health and emotional damage to relationships, they were challenges, yes. Only, those were going to become small steps.

    The big challenge took it’s course over the next few years of 2008-10. The case became strange in court, and there was an entire firm backing me, where numerous lawyers helped to represent me in court. There was so much litigation and the legal to medical translation was extremely difficult to manage with any ease, money, and travel. In early 2010, the case started to catch fire and a couple photographers showed up at the proceedings. At that time, it was being decided how to defend myself. Whether it be at all health related or not at all.

    But interestingly, after showing enough of a sign to willingly do battle in a health related case, the prosecution offered a settlement. I nearly took the fight, but I could no longer see my mother under the scrutiny of the prosecutions black nail polish for another day. I settled, with little or no alternative behest of family and lawyers.

    It was one of the first ever real decisions that I’ve had to make in my life. Like all decisions I’ve found, they cost you.

    For three years I was under probation and required to do various community services. I lost my career opportunities, it frustrated a lot of relationships. With as much support as I did have, though, it never seemed to be enough. I could never understand how to get across my rivers of doubt. But there was a tipping point to experiencing that kind of self regression, pain, and suffering.

    Unlike many people who have also suffered from the legal debacles, I found myself a calling. A true calling. Something that was real and had nothing to do with me by nature, but that would nonetheless afford in itself the opportunity to find bliss. So, in 2010 I rode my bicycle across the country and saved my own life but inspired others to be great along the way, I hope.

    Perhaps you’ve heard a similar story already in your time, but the journey is what matters most. Although it feels like bliss when you reach atop the mountains and smell the air with laughter after laughter or shed tears to the sun until they are dry, there are meaningful things in life that lay in true beauty, outside yourself, and along the journey is where you can find it.

    Thank you Amanda, for sharing such a beautiful and true story as yourself with so many people.

  5. Wesley Price says:

    Hi Amanda,

    Perhaps I’d normally not respond to a blog post. Or, a severely mishandled story in the news. But I found some very telling inspiration in the beauty of truth when I learned about what recently happened to you and the next part of your journey. On the other hand, I also noticed that your “photo safari” was posted on my “golden” birthday on the 28th of March- so, why not a good time to say thanks! lol.

    Amanda, I studied Int’l Studies at the Jackson School at UW, as well as CHID, but that’s either here nor there. During the summer of 2007 I decided to study Turkish in Istanbul after having learned of the requirements for graduation at the Jackson School. I had been to Istanbul once before, and had plenty of incredible experiences that I wanted to revisit. Amongst many reasons why I wanted to go back, something else would also tell me that I was on the verge of a life-changing drama. That’s what life needed to show to me anyway, a challenge. More importantly, that something is how I wanted to become a better person. It became a true struggle.

    I was prepared to continue my studies in Turkish for as long as it needed after my stay over the course of the summer. But while I was living there, things couldn’t have been more exciting, and the int’l language school was simply bi-standard, and the joy was all of the cool friends that I made. Some of them older, younger, French, German, men, women, or even Greek! One of them was named Salvadore, a sixteen year old boy who had come over to visit from Florence. He seemed, much, older than 16 and to tell you the truth, haha, I’m not gay… not at all, but this guy was gorgeous, haha… there was a group of us that made laughs and traveled to the beach together, etc. it was great!

    Things were going awesome and amid so much opportunity and excitement I suffered to find the truth about myself. Nonetheless the fun still remained! Only just a few weeks in, I began to fall in love. And my own struggles within a sexually intensified personal quest, had alas been narrowed. She was very nice and terribly difficult to speak fluently with…lol, but we shared a lot in common we both believed. With such a rare experience like this, for the first time ever- It felt empowering and life-threatening at the same time. It helped me to realize how much conviction that I had as a person to feel so alive!

    Despite being briefly robbed and feeling ominously threatened for a few hours, the weeks past and I flew home according to plan. It was September 2007, the fall quarter started and I quickly needed to log into that weird website, I forget what it’s called, anyway, and get my turkish studies back on track because I knew it might require some negotiation. Which it did, but that would soon seem irrelevant.

    Even before leaving to go back home, there seemed to be something different going on with me. What I now realize, more clearly, had been the sensational feelings toward ultimate freedom and the answer to the suffering I had experienced, it was a new beginning to my life. The moment before I left to go back home was fleeting at that rare glimpses inward, and my fears received the best of me. And for my own sake, I did not end up living in Istanbul by trying to fall any deeper into love… Rather, I wanted to go home to live my life and left the decision making to fleet.

    Shortly after I arrived, I figured out how to use that god-awful class catalog machine online, and negotiated my turkish. I took a quick visit to hall health for a regular check-up. Apparently, the entire time I had been traveling there was a massive, cancerous, set of tumors that were trying to kill me. All along my leg, there was a number of internalized stage 4 malignant melanoma (I think it’s the one bob marley had, i just found out a couple days ago, r.i.p.). So the very kind nurse at hall health, told me that I should be rushed into surgery before it was too late. Within a couple weeks I needed to partake in chemo and had less than 10% chance of survival. Of course, I took the rest of fall quarter off to take care of hospital and chemo stuff, but I immediately journeyed back up to Seattle from my native Hood River, OR. I started piling on the responsibilities of a full-time student in order to graduate on time and stay focused in my life.

    At that time, in my life, all that I can recall is a pursuit of freedom and all it’s greatness coupled with passion and willingness. That’s deep stuff, so I started taking a dance class to keep things moving. Along with my ever important “Task Force” for the Jackson School and another certain requisite, the 2 credit dance course which gave me a full time status. But I felt it important to continue school.

    This is when the story at the time became a real issue.

    It is now January of 2008, some of my former professors were being accused of laundering for a project that helped my previous travel experiences to West Africa for six months, the president Mark Emmert was being accused of numerous ethical concerns, not to mention that your story had recently been made popular, and the University remained to be a top 5 university medical research institute of the world. I beg your pardon, but there was no further room for any error to keep Alumni support happy.

    It was the very first time that I saw this person, whom was to be the associate instructor for the dance class, that it could not have been made any more obvious she maintained special interests. Explicitly, by the way in which she immediately responded to me the very first time we met.

    I had approached her in her office, during office hours before class started, to tell her that I had recently undergone some surgery to my right leg. Furthermore, I wanted to tell her that I had recently been undergoing chemotherapy treatments. Without any hesitation, before I could even finish describing the issues of my mobility, she began yelling “get out of here!, get out of here! who are you?”, pointing me toward the exit. It was an incredible shock, compared to the rest of my other classes, professors, and classmates at the time. At no other time during the past few weeks did anyone feel the need to lunge out at me after I told them that my circumstances were indeed, life and death. Where was this coming from? It hit me like an iron fist. Over the course of the next few days, I saw this women two other times in red square and in class two other times as well. Each time, there was this huge, glazed over look in her eyes before she’d begin awkwardly telling me to stay away or in one case caught my attention first and then ran away before I could barely recognize who it was! I believe all of the incidents happened in red square, and lasted no more than 30 seconds. It was very strange, but I knew something was going to take place, in order to get things done. I was on the verge of fatal illness, and did not have very much energy. But with the energy that I did find, I was going to use to do the basic tasks of walking to class and back. Unfortunately, I did not have any time to be pursuing any associate instructors who were to be 20 years older, in any romantic way, whatsoever!

    Soon after only my second class, taking place in one of the studios of the dance building, I was called into a private meeting with the director of the department as well as an advisor to mediate issues. The private meeting was to be held in the basement of the dance hall. They were sitting calmly with pen and paper when I arrived. Not knowing or recognizing either of them, I sat and waited to hear what I was doing there. But it was clear in a matter of seconds that they did not want me to be attending the dance class or perhaps any of the university. Never receiving a clear understanding from the very brief line of questioning, they proceeded to offer me the academic credit for the course, on the grounds that I reserve my physical attendance and accept my understanding that they would be filing an official report of the accusations. This was early February 2008. The accusations were forthcoming, as it would be.

    I deeply struggled through the next few months and actually completed all of the course work and managed to stay alive despite numerous, dramatic, side effects from the chemotherapy and from the seizures that it gave me. My physical liability was obvious, but I maintained enough strength to do everything just fine.

    Without any major signs of improvement, the biggest question of all remained relevant- was I going to die? And, if I did, what were the circumstances going to be- had I suddenly become too desperate for safety, were other people going to be out of harms way? Or, was this young man, going to create a disaster and leave open to critics or the media, an ethical responsibility issue to one of the most excellent of health facilities.

    Perhaps. Looking back, with or without forgiveness, I just don’t know.

    What people involved directly or indirectly and myself included, had to accept either way is that first and foremost- he did not die and secondly- what is the best way to squash our means to a viable solution (cover up any tracks)?

    For the next two years, I would have to face legal allegations of stalking. It is a felony which places a variety of dangerous intents on someone, to criminally harm or hurt another civilian. Once again, I was shocked out of this world. Primarily because, I didn’t have enough time or energy to go around stalking people or threatening people, I was constantly tired and trying to conserve as much energy as possible. There was never, ever, any intent to “stalk” someone that I never even knew! The very first time that I saw this person, it became a primary piece of evidence in the allegations that I was trying to hurt her. I was being wrongly convicted of guilt.

    For the first time ever, I was being wrongly convicted, but I was a person of conviction. I had been determined to pursue the life that I had always dreamed and to overcome any of the small steps or challenges along the way. The health and emotional damage to relationships, they were challenges, yes. Only, those were going to become small steps.

    The big challenge took it’s course over the next few years of 2008-10. The case became strange in court, and there was an entire firm backing me, where numerous lawyers helped to represent me in court. There was so much litigation and the legal to medical translation was extremely difficult to manage with any ease, money, and travel. In early 2010, the case started to catch fire and a couple photographers showed up at the proceedings. At that time, it was being decided how to defend myself. Whether it be at all health related or not at all.

    But interestingly, after showing enough of a sign to willingly do battle in a health related case, the prosecution offered a settlement. I nearly took the fight, but I could no longer see my mother under the scrutiny of the prosecutions black nail polish for another day. I settled, with little or no alternative behest of family and lawyers.

    It was one of the first ever real decisions that I’ve had to make in my life. Like all decisions I’ve found, they cost you.

    For three years I was under probation and required to do various community services. I lost my career opportunities, it frustrated a lot of relationships. With as much support as I did have, though, it never seemed to be enough. I could never understand how to get across my rivers of doubt. But there was a tipping point to experiencing that kind of self regression, pain, and suffering.

    Unlike many people who have also suffered from the legal debacles, I found myself a calling. A true calling. Something that was real and had nothing to do with me by nature, but that would nonetheless afford in itself the opportunity to find bliss. So, in 2010 I rode my bicycle across the country and saved my own life but inspired others to be great along the way, I hope.

    Perhaps you’ve heard a similar story already in your time, but the journey is what matters most. Although it feels like bliss when you reach atop the mountains and smell the air with laughter after laughter or shed tears to the sun until they are dry, there are meaningful things in life that lay in true beauty, outside yourself, and along the journey is where you can find it.

    Thank you Amanda, for sharing such a beautiful and true story as yourself with so many people.

  6. Willis Coleman says:

    In reply to Anthony April 16 00:39 who wrote “the normal 3-hour limit of food beginning to pass from the stomach to the duodenum.” What normal 3-hour time limit? Do you have a single source that says that food can be in the stomach in an advanced state of digestion and yet there is nothing in the duodenum? The ONLY explanation is that the duodenum was not ligated or was ligated improperly and the contents spilled into the small intestine and were propelled to the closed ileocecal valve while Lalli was running the bowel. That is what the court-appointed pathologists said and you don’t need to have been at there to know that is what happened.

    • Rob H says:

      No, No, No. You simply are incapable of understanding. For the second time I remind you that the evidence has already been posted on this blog for you. The maximum time for the stomach to begin emptying is 200 minutes (by experiment). What we are interested in is when the stomach starts emptying. It had not started emptying before Ms Kercher’s death. This gives, depending on whether Ms Kercher’s final meal commenced at 6 or 6.30 pm either a latest possible TOD of either 9.30 pm or 9.50pm. The data supports the conclusion that it is far more likely that she died before 9.30pm but that she could not have died after 9:50pm.

      What you are trying to do is push the TOD much later. In order to do this you HAVE to dispute the fact that the duodenum was empty because it could not be empty for a TOD that late.

      Lalli’s autopsy was played for the court – Ronchi had previously concluded that Lalli had failed to ligate the duodenum. He was wrong.

      If you read Massei, you will see, additionally that he (Massei) misunderstood Lalli’s evidence on stomach emptying.

      What court appointed pathologists are you referring to?

      What testimony?

      Provide a link please, as we have previously asked you to.

      • Willis Coleman says:

        The court-appointed pathologists are Ronchi, Cingolani and Aprile. Their testimony was posted by Amanda. It is simply ridiculous to suggest that a normal person could have a solid phase lag of 200 minutes when normal is around 20 minutes. Moreover, the gastric contents were not in solid phase but rather in an “advanced stage of digestion”.

    • Antony says:

      Willis Coleman: “In reply to Anthony April 16 00:39 who wrote “the normal 3-hour limit of food beginning to pass from the stomach to the duodenum.” What normal 3-hour time limit? Do you have a single source that says that food can be in the stomach in an advanced state of digestion and yet there is nothing in the duodenum?

      Willis, you ask that others provide sources for their facts without ever providing any of your own. But it’s a straw man, because the stomach contents were not in an advanced state of digestion. Court testimony stated that there was recognisable cheese, vegetable matter and starch – essentially a part-digested pizza.

      As regards the 3-hour limit, I could follow the usual pro-guilt tactic of telling you to google for the facts yourself, but it’s even in the Massei report (translation at http://truejustice.org/ee/documents/perugia/TheMasseiReport.pdf – not wishing to recommend anything from TJMK), pages 109-110 (p. 115 of the TJMK translation). The pathologist Lalli puts an upper limit for TOD of 3 hours after eating. (He also gives 4 hours as a maximum – but note, this is for the stomach to empty completely, not the time for it to begin emptying, which is what is relevant here.)

      “The ONLY explanation is that the duodenum was not ligated or was ligated improperly and the contents spilled into the small intestine and were propelled to the closed ileocecal valve while Lalli was running the bowel.

      This idea seems to be based on Massei himself engaging in improper speculation (rather than evidence) that the ligatures were not tied correctly. The problem you have is that the video of the autopsy shows that they were indeed tied correctly. You have no basis for your claims.

      “That is what the court-appointed pathologists said and you don’t need to have been at there to know that is what happened.”

      The court-appointed pathologists said no such thing. You are making this up, just as you made up the claim of the meal being in “an advanced state of digestion”.

      • Willis Coleman says:

        Lalli was drawing conclusions based on faulty information. “Avanzato stato digestivo” = original Italian, Massei report, page 114. The way digestion works is food gets gradually liquefied in the stomach and simultaneously the liquid fraction is secreted into the duodenum. We know there was a liquid fraction because the food was in an “advanced state of digestion”. The liquid fraction doesn’t just evaporate. At least some of it has to be in the duodenum or else one of the following occurred: it slipped prior to the autopsy, or Lalli didn’t attach the duodenal ligature properly. No video necessary. No citation needed. This is just common sense.

        • Antony says:

          Willis Coleman: “Lalli was drawing conclusions based on faulty information. “Avanzato stato digestivo” = original Italian, Massei report, page 114.

          This appears on p. 119 of the TJMK translation. It is a statement made by Professor Bacci, the pathologist appointed by the prosecutor, not the court. Again you are making up facts to suit your agenda, and it doesn’t take much checking to expose them.

          It hardly needs to be added that nothing claimed by those acting for the prosecutor or the police in this case can be regarded as impartial. Lalli was also initially appointed by the prosecutor, who sacked him because he (the prosecutor) didn’t like his conclusions.

        • TomG says:

          I must admit I find this subject fascinating regardless of which side of the debate you stand. As far as I understand it when the stomach contents empty into the duodenum its technical term is “chyme”. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chyme. This chyme is very acidic due to hormone releases from the duodenum. (please see the link) so the questions are, would an experienced pathologist not know from testing the PH of the stomach contents whether it had refluxed from the duodenum when the muscle relaxes after death? Also, wouldn’t the increased acidity produced by the duodenum alter the consistency of the digested food and also the appearance of it, making it discernable from the existing stomach contents? I would be surprised if a pathologist couldn’t tell the difference!

          Hoots!

  7. Diane Kristy says:

    Love your beautiful photos. Nature (springtime!) is so healing and wonderful. Thank you for sharing your many different perspectives and details. (how does the adding machine/cash register move around?) Neat. More, please.

  8. Willis Coleman says:

    In reply to the bogus timeline that has been floating around:
    AK/RS: Seen at his house 5:50pm November 1. AK appeared to be doing email.
    AK/RS: VLC player started to play Amelie 6:27pm (last definite computer use)
    RS: “We walked around town until 8:00-8:30pm”
    AK: Received text from Patrick outside usual RS apartment cell tower 8:18pm
    RG: Possibly seen walking to cottage on CCTV 8:21pm
    AK/RS: AK seen at his house 8:40pm. RS on phone at his house until 8:46pm
    MK: Possibly seen walking to cottage on CCTV 9:01pm. RG says MK let him in and AK/RS came later (no independent corroboration).
    AK/RS: Witness reports seeing them at various times watching the cottage gate from Piazza Grimana between approximately 9:30-11:30pm.
    MK: Phone internet connection briefly activated 22:13pm. Cell tower not usual for inside cottage, but well received outside cottage.
    MK: Call from dad unanswered 12:10am. Cell tower is the one where phone was found discarded next day.
    RG: Witnesses saw RG at Domus nightclub beginning about 2:00am
    AK/RS: Listening to music on his computer 5:32am. RS phone switched on 6:02am
    MK: Body temperature not taken until 12:50am November 3. Temperature, state of digestion cannot determine precise time of death per medical examiner and court-appointed experts.

    • Som Nathan says:

      @willis Coleman. Do you find pictures taken by Amanda as beautiful and real or fake???
      Your time line analysis is all fake most likely coming from one of the Guilter sites. It’s “by peter quenelles” written all over it. Willis your judgement of ground reality is quite like a two year old, who believes fairies are real.

    • Rob H says:

      Are you deliberately trying to deceive, “willis” or are you just an incompetent scribe? This lacks rigour.

      Let’s deal with at least some of what you have left out and your mistakes.

      1) You have omitted from the “timeline” the facts established by Sophie Purton’s testimony. So:

      MK: Leaves home of Frost and Butterworth with Purton at 8:45 (a)
      MK: Parts company with Purton – states she has no plans and is tired 8:55 (a)

      2) We must also add in:

      MK: Failed call to her mother (after she left Purton) 8:56

      3) The last “definite” use of the computer is NOT 6:27 pm. From “Massei”, p. 302 – “In particular, the evidenced human interactions occurred at: √ 21:10:32 on the 1 November 2007.
      [325] √ at 05:32:09 on the 2 November 2007, this last evidenced at heading 2 of the Postal Police report, relating to ‚Files written‛”. The 21:10:32 reference relates to the end of “Amelie” (see also p.302 -305).

      Additionally, the prosecution now accepts that “Naruto” was opened at 9:26pm.

      When both prosecution and defence agree about evidence, there is no longer a dispute about evidence, so, it should properly appear in the timeline as undisputed. However, in order to be rigorous, we have to accept that Nencini may reject even Crini’s acceptance of the fact, which theoretically could re-open the dispute. In any case:

      AK/RS: System records last access to the file “Amelie” 9:10.32

      AK/RS : “Naruto” opened, 9:26pm (alibi evidence subject to possible court challenge. Accepted by defence and prosecution)

      4) You have omitted both the “strange” 9:58pm and 10:00pm calls from Ms Kercher’s phone. There is a dispute about who made these calls. So:

      Unknown: Call placed to MK voicemail from MK phone – shut off before end of “welcome” message 9:58

      Unknown: Call “dialled” to MK bank from MK phone omitting country code 44. No call, therefore, is placed 10:00pm

      Now let’s deal with what should not be in this timeline.

      1) For the 22:13 interaction, you should not mark this “MK”, because there is no evidence that Ms Kercher had anything to do with it.

      2) The final entry should not appear. The time the body temperature was taken and your own account of the evidence derived from it are unconnected to the rest of the information in your timeline. This is part of the post-death evidence collection phase of the case.

      3) The third entry, “RS: We walked around town…” should not appear. This is not an established fact (was derived from an alleged coercive interrogation). It is not attested to by Mr Sollecito and there is no other evidence of its having occurred. It does not state when the “activity” commenced, only a range of time for when it concluded.

      A timeline should be an undisputed, relevant, evidence reliant record of chronological certainty. Where absolute certainty cannot be assured or where a disputed entry is included, an appropriate, elucidatory note should appear next to the entry.

      What a timeline should not be is a tendentiously contrived, subjective manipulation. That will serve only to promote mis-carriages of justice when it is used in criminal cases.

      • Willis Coleman says:

        Massei slips up and calls the 21:10 interaction an “evidenced human interaction” but it’s clear if you scroll down the page that the prosecution expert said this activity could have occurred “irrespective of the physical presence of a user”.

        If the cloned hard drive in any way supported their alibi, you can bet that Raffaele would make public his defense expert reports and the disk image itself. His choice to keep those materials confidential speaks volumes.

        We agree that nothing should be read into Crini’s statements about “Naruto” until Nencini explains his reasoning. If Nencini says nothing about it I will assume Crini misspoke.

        I omitted the 9:58pm and 10:00pm phone activity only for simplicity. I don’t dispute that this activity is strange, and I agree it’s possible this activity was not made by Meredith, but the overwhelming likelihood is that it was her. What could the attacker hope to gain by messing with her phone?

        “RS: We walked around town…” was NOT derived from a coerced interrogation. It comes from his own voluntary prison diary that his own lawyers released, before the lawyers in question were tossed from his team.

        • BigDinBoise says:

          “We walked around town” – does indeed come from the interrogation, and was is referring to October 31. I believe he clarifies that in his prison diary.

          • Willis Coleman says:

            Actually, here’s what he said happened on the 31st in his prison diary: “Let’s start from October 31, the day I went to Francesco’s graduation and I went to Paoloʹs house and I then met with Amanda. I spent the day with her having dinner and then she went to the centre with her face painted like a kitten. I subsequently went out, painting my face as an abstract figure. I went for a walk in the centre and, after that, I met with Amanda again. We went straight home from there and we spent the night watching a film.” Where does it say they walked around town together on the 31st?

        • Rob H says:

          You quote the prosecution expert (Trotta) stating that the 9:10 interaction could have occurred “irrespective of the physical presence of a user”. But he didn’t say this. You lift the quote from the Massei translation. It’s Massei’s precis of his own understanding of the possibilities generally with regard to the accessing of computer programmes.

          What Trotta actually said was: “Non faccio ipotesi, io affermo che l’ultima interazione sul file avviene alle 21.10 e 32.” – “I do not make assumptions, I claim that the last interaction on the files is at 21.10:32″.

          Of course, since if it was run without a break, “Amelie” would have finished at approximately 8:25pm, then there had to have been additional human interactions with the programme before 9:10pm.

          Since this matter is resolved to the satisfaction of all parties, I hardly see that
          anything Mr Sollecito’s defence does not do in connection with its expert’s reports on the matter says anything important at all. They have far more important things to concern themselves with than the errant claims of a tendentious blogger with fake IDs that have no bearing whatsoever on the case.

          As for Naruto, I do not agree that nothing should be made of Crini’s acceptance of the 9:26 opening. I am merely being rigorous in my approach to timelines. Your contention that if Nencini is silent about Naruto, then this will mean that Crini “misspoke” (whatever that means), is ludicrous.

          The cellphone activity at 9:58 and 10pm might be simple for you to ignore, but the cell tower connection for these calls likely places them away from Via Pergola. I can well believe that Guede thought there might be something to gain from Ms Kercher’s data. Your claim that the “overwhelming likelihood” is that she made these calls is subjective nonsense. It has no evidence to support it.

          As for Mr Sollecito’s early attempts to achieve clarity of thought (having been deliberately confused by the police in his last interrogation) in attempting to establish his whereabouts, it is immaterial whether you quote from his statement to the police, to Matteini or from his diary (which, incidentally, was copied by his jailers). The point is that his claims are wrong. His narrative has him and Ms Knox leaving Via Pergola at 6pm and not returning to his flat AT ALL until “8-8:30pm”. This is impossible because they met Ms Popovic at his flat between 5:45 and 6pm and started “Amelie” at 6:27pm. But you insert the timeframe in your timeline to “show” that Mr Sollecito left his flat between 8 and 8:30 pm AFTER returning from Via Pergola. So, either you are utterly ignorant of the facts or you are being deeply dishonest. Please confirm which.

          • Willis Coleman says:

            Great, so we’ve established that Trotta was the one who misspoke at one point about 9:10 being an “interaction” and Massei merely copied him. Second, we agree that Raffele’s refusal to make public his computer expert reports is a legal strategy, not a genuine search for truth.

            The 9:58 and 10pm phone interactions did not connect to any cell tower, let alone place them away from via Pergola. I think you are talking about the internet connection.

            We know Raffaele was mistaken about the time he left the cottage. No big deal: They left around 5pm. He doesn’t state in his diary whether they stopped first at his house before going on their walk, but we know they did.

            Your version requires that Raffaele became so confused by his interrogation that two days later he wrote, and testified to, an entirely fictitious account of their whereabouts on the night of the murder up until about 8:30pm.

    • Andrea Jonasson says:

      The witness who reports them as watching the cottage between 9:30 and 11:30 either gives them an alibi, is lying his butt off, or has a very weak hold on reality, so you should probably leave him out of your calculations:

      Super Fake Witness by Frank Sfarzo

      Why are you omitting the Naruto start time from your timeline?

      Why are you omitting the empty duodenum evidence which points to an early time of death from you timeline? Are you sticking to the story that it could’ve been any old time that suits you, since the temperature was not taken in a timely way?

      • Willis Coleman says:

        I believe Curatolo saw Amanda and Raffaele in Piazza Grimana that night, but unfortunately his credibility or lack thereof was never convincingly established. Leaving him out of the timeline doesn’t make much difference.

        The empty duodenum doesn’t fit any scenario. The logical conclusion is that the ligatures will applied improperly or the intestinal contents shifted at some point before the autopsy.

        • Antony says:

          Willis Coleman: “The empty duodenum doesn’t fit any scenario.

          … not the ones involving Amanda and Raff, correct.

          “The logical conclusion is that the ligatures will applied improperly

          The logical conclusion is that Meredith was dead well before 10pm, at a time when Amanda and Raff were demonstrably at his flat, and Guede was by all indications alone with her in the cottage.

          “or the intestinal contents shifted at some point before the autopsy.”

          Willis’s thinking is of a piece with all of the guilter “logic” when faced with inconvenient evidence: it’s all been altered or faked in some way.

          So, the broken window isn’t an indication of an intruder gaining illegal access; it’s the result of a staging – one that matched a real break-in remarkably precisely. The lack of DNA traces from 2 of the accused is the result of a clean-up that doesn’t leave any evidence that it happened. It’s akin to creationist claims that dinosaur fossils were faked by the devil to mislead present-day scientists.

          The irony is that the mainstay “evidence” that supports the prosecution case – Curatolo, the double-DNA knife, the bra-clasp – doesn’t fit any plausible guilt scenario either. We’re supposed to think that Amanda and Raff were hanging about in the plaza for 3 hours at the same time as engaging in a sex game gone wrong in the cottage, that Amanda carried the kitchen knife to and fro and that it wasn’t even the only knife used in the attack, and that Raff left his DNA only on the part of Meredith’s underwear that would be most inaccessible during the attack.

          Not only that, but there is considerable evidence in the public domain of improper procedures associated with both the DNA items, exposing them to multiple risks of contamination; while there is no evidence of incorrect tying of the ligatures at the autopsy – the reverse, from my understanding. Yet Willis and his ilk try to make the argument that Stefanoni’s methods were sound while at the same time casting doubt on the conduct autopsy, just because it doesn’t support their case.

          • Willis Coleman says:

            No, the empty duodenum does fit *any* scenario. The stomach contents were in an advanced digestive state. There should have been something in the duodenum. The fact that there wasn’t proves there was slippage into the small intestine where, lo and behold, the pathologist found digested food. I’ll repeat, the empty duodenum is worthless for determining time of death.

          • Antony says:

            “There should have been something in the duodenum.

            You are simply wrong. She began her meal at around 6:30pm and disturbed Guede in the course of his burglary of her home at around 9pm. This is well within the normal 3-hour limit of food beginning to pass from the stomach to the duodenum. It can happen in less time – in this case, it didn’t.

            “The fact that there wasn’t proves there was slippage into the small intestine

            This is a completely irrational conclusion, and contrasts strikingly with the typical guilter assertion that there was “no proof of contamination” in the utterly compromised DNA items central to the case.

            The slippage claimed here simply does not happen in cases like this.

            “where, lo and behold, the pathologist found digested food.”

            Half-truth. The digested food was at the far end of the small intestine, and was the remnant of food she had eaten earlier in the day.

            Give it up Willis. People here are very well-informed about the case and see you agenda-driven “reasoning” for what it is.

        • Rob H says:

          Curatolo provides an alibi for Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito – notice how neither of them nor their supporters jump on this. He is a wholly unreliable witness.

          As for the duodenum evidence – you are again wrong. It fits almost as a hand in a glove the contention that Ms Kercher died soon after arriving home. Indeed, the science positively rules out a TOD after about 9:50 and greatly favours a TOD before 9:30. I have provided the evidence for you in a previous post. You made no response to it and here you are repeating your non-evidenced claim which is pretty typical really.

          Your illogical conclusion that Lalli botched the autopsy (you have no evidence) is refuted, I understand by video evidence played in court.

          When the evidence doesn’t fit your guilt theories you try to discredit it.

      • GT says:

        also I think he is now dead? (the “witness”)

    • Andrea Jonasson says:

      Just so people can compare timelines, here’s a link to the timeline at Murder of Meredith Kercher:

      Meredith Kercher Murder Timeline November 1

    • Duke says:

      AK/RS Witness reports seeing them at various times watching the cottage gate from Piazza Grimana from approximately 9:30 to 11:30 pm.By witness I assume you’re referring to delusional,homeless heroin addict Toto Curatolo.Pretty much sums up the prosecution’s case.

      • Willis Coleman says:

        I saw no evidence that Curatolo was delusional. If I were on the jury I would conclude that he saw Amanda and Raffaele that night, but the fact that the two of them were out and about can be inferred from other facts so his testimony isn’t crucial.

        • BigDinBoise says:

          So the fact that he was a): a heroin addict, and b): saw buses in the square which were not there, is not a problem for you Willis?

          I hope you are never allowed to serve on a jury.

        • Rob H says:

          From what “facts” can you infer that Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito were “out and about”?

          Remember , “willis” – you said “FACTS”!

        • Som Nathan says:

          If I were in a jury I would have not convicted AK & RS in the first place. For there are glaring holes in prosecutors “fictional, creative theories” about the murder.
          1. Why was window break-in rendered “staged” and no further investigation was ordered by Massie, to prove that it indeed was staged. Filomena ransacked her belongings in her room after finding that it has been broken-into. Why was it not taken into account that she did disturb the crime scene.
          2. Why was only one shiny “knife” from RS kitchen was picked from a collection of knives and admitted as murder weapon. No court documents show the selection criteria of this “knife” and rejection criteria of other knives in the same kitchen.
          3. Massie did not give any reason and evidence that AK carried “the knife” around before the murder and no evidence is documented that she carried it back to RS apartment.
          5. Why were AK, RS & PL arrested even before all evidence collected until that point analyzed? Why were the investigators and prosecutors in such a hurry to solve the crime?
          6. Why was Rudy Guede not allowed to be cross examined by AK & RS defense team even he tried and charged for the same crime and he accused AK & RS as accomplices?

          All these questions and many others that prosecutors have not even attempted to answer will cause serious doubts for me and I would render AK & RS as innocent.

  9. Richard says:

    I have a question for anyone. After Judge Nencini gives his explanations the case is then appealed to the Italian Court of Cassation. They then pass judgement on it and that is the final appeal at least as far as Italy is concerned. My question is can the Court of Cassation at some point in the future reopen the case and form a different opinion if they become aware of new forensic or circumstantial evidence. Or if there is a change in Court personnel who might look at the case differently. The Italian legal system seems to be able to do most anything they want and form any opinion they want not unlike a secret police organization in a totalitarian state. The problem with that of course is any verdict formed in that matter may have the force of law in that country but is essentially meaningless anywhere else. The criminal aspect of the case ended with the Judge Hellmann aquital and it then became completely political. I can see the court of Cassation doing whatever it takes to save face for the judges involved then finding a quiet way out of the whole mess and everyone goes on their way. My guess would be the court can do anything it wants but is that correct?

    • Sarah H says:

      As I understand it, the Court of Cassation is legally not obligated to accept the Nencini verdict — they could find something wrong with the motivation and send the case back to yet another Appeals Court for another trial. And another and another till they finally got exactly the result that they wanted.

      However, assuming that Nencini falls into line and his motivation says whatever the Court of Cassation wants it to say, the likelihood is that the CC will approve it this time. Once the CC finally approves an Appeals Court ruling, then the case can no longer be reopened by the prosecution.

    • Nasim says:

      As in every country, the Italian Court of Cassation has some nominal restrictions on what it can do. Italy at least is covered by the ECHR. There is really nothing preventing the US Supreme Court from doing whatever it wants without sparking a Constitutional crisis.

      • Rob H says:

        I am not the world’s biggest fan of American justice by any means, but “nasim” is partly making what’s known as a “category mistake” The US Supreme Court is not entirely analogous to the Court of Cassation because in Italy the Supreme Court function is split between it and the Constitutional Court.

        Furthermore, the US Supreme Court performs its function in a common law system of justice and is for the most part bound by precedent, (although not rigidly in constitutional cases). Secondly, it stands above all state and federal courts (it is “superior” by degrees of separation to Cassation). Thirdly, its key function in upholding constitutional rights brings its role at least in some meaningful sense, closer to the role of the ECHR.

        It really isn’t clear to me who or what was supposed to be protecting Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito’s constitutional rights in Italy – only that they have been flagrantly breached and the breaches unacknowledged. And Cassation seems to have great difficulty following its own rules. So yes, go ECHR!

        There have actually been numerous occasions in US history where the Supreme Court’s decisions have approached the level of constitutional crisis – Dred Scott was a prelude to the Civil War and, in more modern times, Roe v Wade are but two examples.

  10. Jack Friend says:

    The tyranny of a multitude is a multiplied tyranny.
    Edmund Burke

    A coworker recently stated to me she was bothered by not knowing what happened to the Malaysian flight that has become lost. She wanted to know what happened to it. I think it is a human desire to want to know such things but in reality there is much we will never know.

    Which brings me to this case, I don’t think we will every know with certainty what happened the night Meredith Kertcher was killed and no amount of speculation will likely change that fact. The one person who could provide the most unbiased point of view is deceased. The real question at hand now is how much authority you give government to take liberty and from whom.

    For me this case has always been about more than just Amanda and Raffaele, it is a question of how much evidence we require before taking someone’s life or liberty. DNA technology is relatively new when compared to the timeline of human history and in just a short time in a limited number of cases where it has been applied, many who were condemned as guilty have been set free. People whom countless judges, juries, prosecutors, media, and many in society at large condemned as being guilty. We were certain until proved wrong.

    It is quite likely that those who have so quickly assumed Amanda to be guilty also did so with the Duke Lacrosse Team and many other high profile cases. When the facts then prove them wrong, they blame it on someone else. Human nature being what it is, it is easy to condemn a stranger and heap all our vengeance upon them. I believe those so willing to condemn Amanda and Raffaele with these facts, would see these same set of facts totally different if it were they who were accused or their daughter. Then they would expect you and I to be fair minded and to believe them when they say they are innocent. The shoe is then on the proverbial other foot.

    It is argued by some the fact that because so many police, prosecutors and others feel Amanda is guilty proves she is guilty. This argument is logically fallacious and is referred to by logicians as an ad populum argument. Simply because many people believe something to be true does not make it so. According to the philosopher and mathematician Bertrand Russell “The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a wide-spread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible.”

    Thus using their logic, if Amanda is guilty because many people believe it so; Then because many people agreed with Hitler’s policies persecution of Jews becomes acceptable, slavery of African-American’s becomes just, and the Earth would be flat. When Copernicus proposed that the Earth revolved around the Sun, most in his day disagreed. Most were wrong.

    Most of the arguments used as proof of Amanda and Raffale’s guilt are of the ad hominem variety. Ad hominem attacks are made against the person as though this will prove a set of facts. Attacks against Miss Knox’s character, sexual conduct, etc. are proof of nothing and are fallacious and of no logical merit.

    The fact such ad hominem attacks are used by those in authority such as prosecutors does not make them factual. Why do they use them? Because they create an attitude of disapproval against a person making it easier to discount what they may say and easier for others to accept a prosecutor’s argument. However, the fact remains attacking the person does not prove the facts.

    That free thinking people accept such logical fallacies is unfortunate. How many quickly rushed to judge the Duke Lacrosse Team? Hitler was a classic user of the ad hominem argument. German citizens of Jewish ancestry were responsible for the problems besetting German society. Many accepted this conclusion and willingly committed atrocities against their fellow man.

    The ad hominem argument is also often used against those who support Miss Knox by stating they are weak minded or “fans.” As though the mere act of believing Miss Knox is innocent is false in and of itself. Of course, this argument is not valid.

    It is very easy to condemn except when it is your neck that faces the hangman’s noose. Those that attack the character of Miss Knox I believe are ultimately less concerned about justice for a murder victim but establishing a sense of moral superiority to Miss Knox for their own selfish reasons. Regardless of the opinions of others including those in power in Italy who are themselves fallible, I will continue to believe there is insufficient evidence to deprive Amanda and Raffaele of their liberty.

    It is better to risk saving a guilty person than to condemn an innocent one.”
    ― Voltaire, Zadig

    • Julia says:

      Jack, I fully agree with your post. VERY well stated. You should be lawyer (or maybe you are?) :-)

    • Rob H says:

      Sorry Jack, but I hear many versions of “I don’t think we will ever know with certainty what happened…” to Ms Kercher.

      Apart from the fine detail, I beg to differ.

      The evidence tells us it was a burglary committed by a lone burglar with a record of similar burglaries whilst carrying a knife, gone wrong – a young woman who tragically came home and surprised him – an attack – a slaying – a sexual assault.

      What details we do not know could not enhance or make more meaningful the substance of the explanation.

      • Jack Friend says:

        Rob, no need to be sorry, I do understand what you are saying.

        Unfortunately, being a Philosophy major my mind makes a distinction between the evidence and the entire body of events that either occurred or could have occurred on the night of the murder. We know for example, that Stonehenge exists. However, there are competing theories as to why and for what purpose it was created. None of these theories may ever be proven as factual.

        I agree with your statement on the evidence at hand but the evidence is what remains after the crime. I would agree the evidence demonstrates what you are stating and I agree Rudy left a good deal of it. It is also quite possible the evidence we have against Rudy is only a small fraction of what may have existed had it been collected, observed or properly examined. It is possible Rudy told a friend in the Ivory Coast about his plans. It is possible sexual assault was the primary motivation of the crime. The only way we would know for certain is to believe Rudy one way or the other and even then would we really know?

        My main point though regarding not knowing with certainty what happened is in response to the many suppositions made by those who feel Amanda and Raffaele are guilty. I have read many grand theories contained in a variety of comments that Amanda did this because of that and so on. In reality, the whole “sex game gone wrong” is nothing more than wild speculation regardless of who states it. Even if Barack Obama made an official proclamation that yes indeed it was a sex game gone bad would it be true? Of course not. Just because some or many in authority make a claim does not prove it true. Persons often state their theories or suppositions as facts, which they clearly could not know in this case as certain unless they were either present at the scene or had access to a video of the murder itself. And as you point out, the theories are not supported by the evidence that remains.

        For me it is one thing to have grand suppositions about things we do not know when no one is harmed and quite another when someone is facing 28 years in prison. I could theorize Stonhenge was created by 2 foot pink aliens and you could not disprove this nor, more importantly, do I have evidence to support this statement.

        For me if I was sitting on a jury hearing evidence against Amanda and Raffaele, to convict them I would need evidence such as:
        1)Their DNA on the murder victim. ie skin cells under victims fingernails.
        2)Murder victims DNA via blood on their clothes.
        3) Financial evidence such as Amanda took out a life insurance policy on Meredith 2 weeks before murder.
        4) Photographic evidence- a neighborhood surveillance camera snaps a picture of Amanda and Raffaele fleeing the scene and that picture is time and date stamped.

        I am sure I could think of others. For me, convicting anyone without such evidence will lead only to endless conjecture and more and more innocent people being released from prison years later, which is what we are seeing now. It of course could mean that some people can plan the perfect crime and get away with it, but that already happens now. Serial killers get away with their crimes for years because they plan and often target those who are vulnerable such as prostitutes, etc.

        My main argument all along on this blog is that we need to raise the bar of evidence we require in order to convict someone and should not rush to judgement and allow our desire for vengeance to overcome reason. DNA evidence and subsequent exonerations will hopefully force us to give a hard look at our standards of evidence. I will admit to having selfish reasons for this, I don’t want what happened to Amanda to happen to my daughter or anyone else’s and in reality it so easily can. I could certainly also add that I would not want what happened to Meredith to happen to my daughter or anyone else’s. However, if it did, I would be greatly offended that the person the evidence strongly supports having committed the murder only received 16 years.

        Sorry, I meant to be brief but my wife says I cannot ever be brief.

      • the real says:

        Rubbish amanda and raffaele killed that girl and they are barefaced liars. Why would a burgler try to hide evidence???

    • Som Nathan says:

      And it is “Surely better to Pardon too much than to condemn too much”.
      But then there is nothing to pardon or condemn, for these two beautiful souls are pure and innocent.
      Why so much hatred against the innocent, I don’t understand. I hope the detractors will wake up some day and understand that “the truth, innocence and true justice cannot remain suppressed and hidden for ever”.

    • Som Nathan says:

      @Jack Friend. Very well said, Sir.

  11. Doug Moodie says:

    @Nasim. I was wondering if you have found a link I can access to the China study that shows 99% of HIV tests give a false positive. If you have I would appreciate it. But, I am even more wondering what you mean by plausable? Do you mean probable? It certainly is possible, even likely that to good kids (based on prior behavior) with far better thngs to do who unexpectedly find they have an evening free would not rush around town on a lark like evil insane zomies and kill their flatmate. But, what I really want to know are two things – how can it be plausable that you accept some obscure chinese study that seems to come to a odd conclusion and disregard every other reported result, while at the same time you find it implausable that K & S are innocent? and – Reading your posts lately it is occurring to me that you are begining to question your positition about Knox’s involvement. Perhaps you are not concious of it, but, I wonder if you would take some time to examine your own heart and courage and ask yourself if you really do think she is guilty. Thanks.

      • Sarah H says:

        This study appears to contradict Nasim. It says if 1000 HIV negative people took a current test, only 3 of them would have a false positive result.:

        “The Health Protection Agency (HPA) evaluated ten different 4th generation tests, finding that 9 had a sensitivity of 100% – in other words, all HIV positive people tested were correctly
        diagnosed. The 1 other test had a sensitivity of 99.8%.

        “Off the back of this analysis, the HPA estimate that if 1000 HIV negative people undertook 4th generation tests 997 of them would be correctly diagnosed as such, while three would
        incorrectly test reactive (positive). However, in practice, all reactive results are checked with at least one additional test to confirm they are correct, so individuals would not receive an incorrect diagnosis.”

        • Whatever says:

          Wow, your comments Sarah H (and others) show how low the level of science/math/statistics literacy is in this country…

          Nasim’s comment was about the positive predictive value of the HIV test, NOT the rate of false positives. These are different values altogether. The first looks ONLY at the group that has returned a positive value and asks “what is the likelihood the positive result is true or false?” In a low risk population, a positive result is far more likely to be a false positive than a true positive.

          Logic, folks, which is why you cannot follow the scientific logic that shows Amanda is guilty.

          • Doug Moodie says:

            uh, No. In the first place, it was Nasim who used the phrase false positive, and that ( in the second place) is most likely because – since Knox was told she tested positive, all we are interested in is false positives!!!!!!!!!!!!!

          • Doug Moodie says:

            Actually, reading your answer, I am a little confused. How does – “In a low risk population, *a positive result* is far more likely to be a false positive than a true positive. ” – differ from a measurement of false positives? Also, can you link to the doc Nasim cited that is not blocked by med pub? That was the initial question. I think you are trying to offer an answer to how accurate is an HIV test in a low risk population, which is not the issue at hand. I have no problem agreeing with you that Nasim was attempting to proffer an irrelevant statistic as his answer.

            With your superior logic/math skills, explaining these will be a breeze, I am sure.

          • Julia says:

            Since it is crystal clear that Amanda is innocent, I’d love to hear your definition of “logic” …

          • HH says:

            What’s your point? That it’s common for people to be told that they have HIV when, in fact, they do not.

            There is no real “scientific logic” that points towards Amanda’s guilt. Just a bunch of theories and innuendo based on nothing. Logic points to Amanda’s innocence because she:

            1) Can’t be in two places at once.
            2) Can’t see DNA.
            3) A KITCHEN KNIFE pulled at random from Raffaele’s kitchen drawer that tests negative for blood and positive for starch is not the murder weapon.
            4) Rudy Guede has committed multiple similar burglaries in the past and we have evidence that he brought a knife with him to most of them. Meredith was murdered WITH A KNIFE and the bloody outline of it doesn’t not match Raffaele’s kitchen knife.

            So what scientific logic tells you Amanda is guilty? Your gut? Or is it that you can just tell when you look into her eyes?

            PS. It is not common to be told that you have HIV when you do not.

          • BigDinBoise says:

            Was that the “logic” the Italian prison officials used when they told her the result was positive, instead of waiting for the final result?

            Was that the same “logic” the prosecution used in leaking her confiscated prison diary in which she listed her lovers after she was told that she was positive for HIV?

          • Whatever says:

            Yes, this actually is a very easy concept. It was taught in my first year of medical school. Nasim did not say ”99% of HIV tests give a false positive”, those were your incorrect words. He is talking about the positive predictive value of the test. Just because you do not understand this concept does not mean it is wrong.

            Definition of positive predictive value (from Wikipedia): “the probability that in case of a positive test, that the patient really has the specified disease”. Go there and see the calculation for yourself. It is based on the prevalence of a disease within the population being tested.

            Nasim gave a very relevant statistic. Namely, now that Amanda has had a positive HIV test result, what is the likelihood is a true positive versus a false positive. The answer is the likelihood is extremely low it is a true positive (which turned out to be the case).

            You can read the abstract of the Chinese study on Pub Med which clearly shows they are discussing positive predictive value.

            BASIC SCIENCE/MATH LITERACY!!!

          • Doug Moodie says:

            Whatever, I have to admit… you are right, although exaggerated somewhat. I wonder if Knox why Knox was told she had a positive result if the odds of her having HIV was small? Just to scare her?

          • Som Nathan says:

            @Scientific genius Whatever.
            So genius tell us from the science that was taught to you in the country you are from and science/math/logic not taught in US, “why there is no forensic or genetic evidence of Amanda and Raffaelle found in the room where Meredith was murdered. All the forensic and genetic evidence belongs to the killer Rudy Guede”.

            Please enlighten us with you knowledge and wisdom, and do share “how genetic traces can be selectively cleaned”. Because the prosecutors have alleged that Amanda cleaned her’s and Raffaelles DNA while leaving that of killer Rudy Guede.

            Do tell us about your science\math\logic that has taught you and your Perugian prosecutor buddies, “THE ART OF CLEANING GENETIC MATERIAL BY SELECTIVE METHOD”. It will be an instant success worldwide and you will become millionaire and instant darling of the murderers and killers.

            I long to see your response.

      • HH says:

        That isn’t a 99 percent false positive rate. That’s a 98% real positive rate, meaning the tests are highly accurate.

        Unless Nasim meant that 99% percent of HIV tests ARE CAPABLE OF giving a false positive, meaning the possibility exists, although it is rare.

        If that’s the case, what happened to Amanda was still uncommon and unusual.

        I have heard that herpes can confuse the results though, but I still doubt that’s what happened to Amanda.

      • Doug Moodie says:

        As others have pointed out, this is not an adequate response because:
        It is not the study used to support Nasims position and it appears to completely contradict that study. I am not sure why it was offered.

  12. Elias says:

    Amanda,

    I’m still just really thrilled that you did a fresh blog pages with your nascent photo career — and so we can skip the picture of the ugly angry Perugian guy ;)

    I have a lingering question, that I see had been touched upon a few days ago in that blog page before this one —

    I’ve read your description in your book about being slapped across the back of the head twice.

    I know you were a soccer player, and I know that can be a physical sport. My guess is you weren’t this dainty girl who grew up without physical contact in soccer, or rough housing with your little sisters. You wanted to play some pick up hoops with the boys. So there seems to be this athletic side to you.

    On to the question, how hard were you slapped across the back of the head? If you could really close your eyes and go back to that moment, the week of shock, trauma, probably near two weeks of some sleep deprivation… And really describe the blows to your head, how shocked were you, how much did they hurt, how much of a shot of adrenaline and cortisol (startle-fear-panic) fear for your physical safety.

    My guess when reading your book, is that being the nice person that you are, you under described the severity of those blows. Am I wrong, could they have been hard than you described, did the severity of them fade some with time and everything else you went through? If you could just focus on those moments and tell us how hard the slaps were, and how you would describe them today?

    Also, eldest kids often tend to be tougher then the following siblings…cos they are the alpha, leader of the pack, so to speak.

    I just keep wondering if you were hit harder than you’ve ever let on, ever truly described in detail. (Especially as in court you had the fear of still being incarcerated by LE types in Italy that influenced your daily safety or lack of it.)

    Thanks,

    e

    • Julie Jorgensen says:

      I guess my question in return would be, does it really matter how hard Amanda was hit on the back of the head? If someone hit me on the back of the head and I wasn’t expecting it and I was trapped in a small room with them and they had power and authority over me I would be in shock. It would be unexpected. A person expects to be hit when they are playing sports. They don’t expect it in a room of what they thought were respected adults in authority. People she was trying to please who were not pleased. It would be devistating psychologically just in the act itself and the meaning behind it.

      • Julie Jorgensen says:

        I think it was the feelings evoked from the action more than the actual physical pain that caused this to put her into a state of shock.

        • Mark Saha says:

          Julie, re your: “I think it was the feelings evoked from the action more than the actual physical pain that caused this to put her into a state of shock.”

          I feel you are exactly right. Here is a 20 year old student being shouted at by a room full of angry adults, one of whom slaps her in the back of the head and calls her a “stupid liar”. Amanda doesn’t recall exactly how many were present but at least 12 have sued her for slandering their behavior.

          Dempsey wrote of the police slander suit on her blog of June 5 2010:

          By bringing this slander action, the prosecution has confirmed that the lawyer-free interrogation that led to Knox’s arrest involved at least 12 officers (from Perugia’s Flying Squad and Rome’s SCO) leading to what Knox has described correctly or incorrectly as a “crescendo” of police pressure. She’s said that as many as ten officers crowded into her interrogation room, shouting and making “suggestions” about what she might have heard or seen on the night that her British roommate was murdered. Prosecutor Manuela Comodi had confirmed earlier that 36 members of the Flying Squad watched Amanda cuffed and carted off to jail on November 6, 2007, but Comodi said, “It does not mean there was physical aggression or or mobbing.”

      • Nasim says:

        I have a hard time taking this cuffing seriously because I grew up in an environment in which violence was commonplace, even with the police. Maybe Amanda had more delicate sensibilities, but could she really have believed the police were going to seriously hurt or kill her? Otherwise implicating Patrick was a form of passive aggression designed to get the police off her back. And that’s against the law.

        • Sarah H says:

          If you have paid any real attention to the case, you would know Amanda’s home in West Seattle wasn’t an environment where violence was commonplace, and neither was her Catholic high school, or the University of Washington, where she was a student before going to Perugia. How would she know what the intentions of the police were? Unlike so many of the guilters, she’s never pretended to be a mind reader.

        • Andrea Jonasson says:

          It would be natural for Amanda to have more delicate sensibilities than you if you were raised in violence. I cannot recall the exact source and Amanda will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that she has said that she had never so much as been spanked.

          There are a number of additional factors to consider:

          – the emotional distress of a murdered roommate
          – being away from all her family supports
          – the stress of trying to understand and be understood in Italian
          – extreme fatigue
          – no access to her home and belongings

          These are not trivial considerations.

          You seem certain that Amanda was well enough in command of herself to make a cold blooded decision to offer a statement implicating Patrick that she thought up all by herself. Your certainty is unwarranted, given that recordings of the sessions are not available as objective evidence of what happened in the interrogations.

          Making a false statement to police is illegal, as you say. I expect that hitting a suspect and coercing a statement from her without benefit of counsel is also illegal. Her statements were not properly obtained, and so were not admissible in court. Being inadmissible, they should not form part of the case for guilt.

          At a press conference, DeFelice said that the American had ‘buckled’ and had told police ‘what they already knew’. Buckling is involuntary. You have missed the mark with your armchair pop psych passive-aggressive diagnosis.

        • Wayne says:

          Interesting comment t here Naism. “Cuffing” Amanda may not be an extreme violent act but it is illegal and abusive nevertheless. A little bit illegal is sort of like being a little bit pregnant. The police denied that they did this so they are now lying. And in addition, they are charging her with a slander offense with a 4 year penalty, to cover up their lies. That’s corruption.

          So you seem to be admitting that the police are abusive, corrupt, liars. And yet we are supposed to believe them on all the other “golden” evidence they presented?

          If you cant trust the messenger, you can’t trust the message. Not from abusive, corrupt liars.

        • Julie Jorgensen says:

          Nasim,

          Here in lies the difference. Amanda did not grow up in an environment where violence was common place. I believe I read somewhere that she had never even been spanked as a child.

          I do not believe it was the pain of being hit that put Amanda into shock, although it could have also been painful. I believe it was that a huge line had been crossed. She no longer was safe. Now she was fully their captive, and they could do anything they wanted to her and she could do nothing about it.

          I believe it was the fear this hit evoked in Amanda that made it so powerful. It was, I believe, a psychologically devastating moment that she did not have the background or capacity to understand, not having grown up under such circumstances.

          Combined with the hours of yelling and bullying that preceded it, Amanda was ripe for a false confession. As someone who supposedly grew up where violence is common place, I would be surprised if false confessions are not also common place where you grew up. It seems you would have much more understanding and compassion for such things if that is the case.

          • Amanda says:

            Julie,

            Thank you for your immense capacity for empathy.

            You’re right. Violence was never common place in my environment growing up. My parents never spanked me. I never instigated or was challenged to a fight. The most physical I ever got with anyone was on the soccer field according to the strict rules and intentions of the sport.

            I was not sensitive to the pain of being hit so much as to the fact that I had been struck. It was very much a turning point in my interrogation, when I truly did not know what to think about what was happening anymore and I was overcome by confusion and fear.

            Thank you for understanding,
            a

          • Julie Jorgensen says:

            Thank you for the sweet compliment, Amanda! How I wish that empathy existed in greater abundance among the people of the world.

          • Willis Coleman says:

            Fear of what? Did you think the police were going to kill you? I’ve looked at every case I can find in which a person falsely accused an innocent during interrogation and in each one the person making the accusation had a nefarious agenda. It wasn’t simply that you were racist and told police “I think I saw a scary black man.” You concocted a very specific allegation against Patrick who you well knew wasn’t scary at all. Upstanding citizens don’t do that unless they’re being threatened with a hot poker.

          • Angela Smitherman says:

            “Did you think the police were going to kill you?”

            Maybe Amanda did indeed fear that very thing, “Willis”. Have you ever heard of people being killed by police while in police custody? I thought so.

            And how clever of you to point out that Amanda knew Patrick “wasn’t scary at all”. Funny how you don’t mention that if she herself had been guilty she also would have known Patrick wasn’t guilty at all. If Amanda had been guilty and was NOT being subjected to police coercion, maltreatment, etc., it makes no sense that she would have placed Patrick at the murder scene given that she would have known he would have a solid alibi. This is even more true given that implicating Patrick involved Amanda also placing HERSELF in the cottage when Meredith was killed….not exactly a recipe for getting the police off one’s back. This is just one out of, oh, dozens of reasons I find guilters’ inability to see Amanda’s innocence, as well as of course Raffaele’s, so thoroughly ridiculous.

          • jamesrae says:

            Willis
            You may want to review the Canadian case of David Milgaard falsely imprisoned for rape and murder by stabbing for 23 years and the witness testimony of his friend Nicol John. This has a lot to
            do with memory, brainwashing, drugs and youth.
            It would also be interesting for you to comment on what you think Amanda was saying in the previous 3 days of interrogation and whether that is also relevant to this case.

          • Willis Coleman says:

            jamesrae – I wasn’t aware of the Milgaard case thanks. In reviewing this extraordinary case however I can’t help but notice that the “witnesses” were mentally ill degenerates several of whom were fighting over the $2000 reward money. Not quite the same.

          • Julie Jorgensen says:

            Wow, Willis, you really take the cake when it comes to fatuous comments.

            By your own admission it would have been OK for Amanda to make the coerced statements about Patrick if she had been threatened with a hot poker. OK. Why does this merit a forced confession but not two slaps on the back of the head?

            In reality they are equal…actually the slaps on the back of the head are worse because there was actually physical force used against Amanda. Threatening the use of a hot poker is just invoking fear unless the person is actually touched with the heat of the poker. It’s purpose is basically to induce fear.

            The same could be said for holding a loaded gun to someone’s head. The gun is actually not hurting them a bit. It’s the fear the gun induces that holds the key to it’s power.

            For one it could be a hot poker, for another it could be a loaded gun, for another threats against their freedom (which Amanda also experienced) and for yet another it could be a couple of slaps on the back of the head.

            They are all just tools meant to induce fear and panic and ultimately a false confession.

            It’s time to give this topic a break. Many of us have explained it, as well as Amanda, and if you still can’t see the truth in all it’s plainness than maybe you need to be asking yourself some important questions, such as, why can’t I feel empathy for someone who has been falsely accused and unjustly victimized?

          • Lince says:

            Even putting obvious coercion, the absence of a lawyer, or police “forgetting” to record the interrogation aside, the false “confession” by Amanda, in my opinion, is still very questionable to be regarded as the basis for calunnia(slander) charges. The thing is that these Amanda’s statements were not made in vacuum. They were made by relying on the information given by the police at the time when Amanda had no reasons to mistrust them, when she was actively trying to help them to solve the crime.

            Let us consider what Amanda was told at the moment by the police: (1) “We know you met Patrick that evening”, (2) “We know you were there (at the house, at the time of the murder)”, (3) “Raffaele confirmed you left his apartment that evening”. And they “explained” the Amanda’s confusion and inability to remember those stated things by her allegedly suppressed memories because of the endured shock.

            Now, if you accept those statements (1) – (3) as facts, then the Amanda’s statement “It was Patrick” (and later “I thought it might have been Patrick” in her memoriale) sounds pretty logical for me. However, the statements (1)-(3) were not facts, they were the lies concocted by the police. And this makes the conclusion, Amanda’s statement, logically void (worthless). Because you can logically conclude anything at all if you rely on false assumptions. This is Logic 101.

            Another logical fallacy is how police came up with (3) “Raffaele confirmed you left his apartment that evening” from the statement Raffaele was pressured to admit during his interrogation: “It is possible that Amanda left my apartment when I was asleep”. This Raffaele’s statement does not logically imply (3), unless you provably exclude all the alternatives Amanda might have done (slept beside him, read a book, made herself a cup of tea, etc.) during the time Raffaele was asleep.

            Then you hear from the police/judges statements like “We do not need the evidence, logic and common sense is enough” and wonder whether they know at all what logic is.

          • Willis Coleman says:

            Lince – Raffaele said nothing about being asleep in his pre-arrest statement. (He confirms this on page 222 of Gumbel). He told police unequivocally that Amanda left.

            Even if the police suggested to Amanda everything that was in her declarations (and all such allegations are refuted by the detailed testimony of everyone else who was there) it is implausible that Amanda would be convinced in about an hour of talking through an interpreter that she was someplace she wasn’t. It would be like hyponosis, except you can’t hypnotise a person to do something they don’t want to do. So: impossible.

        • Rob H says:

          “nasim”, do you even acknowledge the phenomenon of “internalised false confessions”?

          You have latched on to “passive aggressiveness” as a label for Ms Knox only in the last week – how can you possibly be in a position to diagnose such a thing?

          I am sorry you suffered from childhood violence; you have written about torture before too – I hope your parents or guardians were held to meaningful account. As for the police, well they have a habit of getting away with it, don’t they?

          It does seem to be another phenomenon that those who suffer violence often find it difficult to empathise, successfully, with other victims.

          Perhaps the idea of Ms Knox – a young woman from a good family, with a good education, well loved and with a comfortable standard of living – as a victim, generally in this case, is something, psychologically, you are incapable of accepting, despite the overwhelming evidence.

          I don’t know; I am not an expert in such matters.

          But I do wonder, in the country where you grew up, “nasim”, whether you were taught that women were not as important as men and perhaps, particularly, if it was a highly religious society, you often saw women in positions of subservience, perhaps covered up for long periods of time and forbidden from associating freely and equally.

          Could these things possibly explain, at least in part, your antipathy to Ms Knox?

          As I said, I don’t know. I’m not an expert in such matters.

      • the real says:

        She lied about that too! Why did she say she was in the house when it happened if she wasn’t, why did she lie and blame an innocent man? Why did she tell her roommate that meredith was killed by the wardrobe when she was found in the middle of the room. I could go on soo many questions? ?? An innocent person does not need to tell so many lies!

        • Antony says:

          the real: “An innocent person does not need to tell so many lies!”

          Ah, so you think she’s a killer not because there’s any primary evidence, but because her accusers have convinced you that “she told lies”. OK, you first: if you think they indicate guilt, what would a guilty person have to gain by the lies you list here?

          The interesting thing is that in spite of the constant claims about Raff and Amanda’s so-called “lies”, none of the pro-guilt faction can actually list them in any coherent manner – they all turn out to be meaningless discrepancies. Just as the pro-guilt faithful can’t state a sequence of events of the night of the crime that fits the known evidence, and involves Amanda and Raffaele.

          “Why did she say she was in the house when it happened if she wasn’t, why did she lie and blame an innocent man?

          So – to you a false confession implicating herself and another innocent person, and made during an all-night interrogation session with no safeguards for her rights, indicates guilt. To me it indicates the reverse: that she was the victim of police misconduct – and indeed, was one of the facts about the case that told me early on that this was a judicial case run out-of-control.

          What would a guilty person have to gain from making the statements that came out of the all-night interrogation?

          Next question.

          “Why did she tell her roommate that meredith was killed by the wardrobe when she was found in the middle of the room.”

          That you should even ask this question shows that you have no concept of the confusion and stress caused by the the initial shock of a corpse being discovered in your home. She was simply repeating what she mistakenly thought she heard other people saying, as she never looked inside the room. Actually, I think you are wrong – Amanda initially understood that Meredith had been found inside the wardrobe.

          Again, what would a guilty person have to gain from saying this? Wouldn’t the real killer (in the extremely unlikely event of being present at the time of the discovery) have simply kept quiet to avoid attracting attention, or betraying knowledge she shouldn’t have?

          No doubt if what she had said had accurately reflected the state of the room, you and others like you would be saying that only the killer would have known it.

          So “the real”, it’s not enough to wave your hands about saying “an innocent person wouldn’t have lied!” You actually have to say why someone guilty of murder would have done so.

          • Angela Smitherman says:

            Bravo, Antony – I really admire the way you and many others here, including of course Amanda herself, so articulately dismantle the nonsense put forth by “the real” (what, one wonders?) and a few other members of the guilter cult.

            I’m glad you brought up the point of the absurdity of Amanda/Raffaele being present at the cottage upon discovery of Meredith’s body. After all, Raffaele had a car! They could have easily fled Perugia and indeed Italy had they actually committed murder. That would seem to me the most logical thing for two young people, with no prior violent crime experience, to have done in a situation like this were they even remotely involved.

  13. Sarah H says:

    The U.S. extradition treaty with Italy was ratified in 1984, but the Italian fast-track trial wasn’t created until 1990. So when the US ratified the treaty with Italy, the fast-track trial system wasn’t in place. Therefore, no one could have anticipated that it would be used to prevent two defendants in a full trial from being able to question evidence and witnesses in a separate fast-track trial that determined “facts” that could then be used against them; or that a witness from a separate fast-track trial (Rudy Guede) could provide a statement for evidence in their trial and that they would be prevented from questioning him.

    One of the fundamental guarantees in the U.S. system of justice — also held by the European Convention on Human Rights and even enshrined in the Italian Constitution — is that defendants must be allowed to question their accusers. I can’t see how either a U.S. judge or the State Department could rule that the proceedings against Amanda and Raffaele met even a minimal standard of justice.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/27/us-italy-knox-extradition-idUSBRE92Q01020130327

    What is unpredictable is how such a case would play out in front of a U.S. judge who would have to weigh the U.S. constitutional protection against double jeopardy with the 1984 bilateral extradition treaty between the United States and Italy. The treaty contains a provision that attempts to protect against double jeopardy, but it is not clear whether that provision would bar extradition in Knox’s case.

    http://wrongfulconvictionnews.com/critical-commentary-on-the-ruling-of-the-supreme-court-on-the-knox-sollecito-trial/

    In truth this is a problem that could touch many other cases in Italy in the future and which has its roots in the creation itself, in 1990, of the “shortened proceeding” (aka the fast track trial).

    The fast track trial is held at “the state of the documents”, i.e. in this case referring to the evidence collected up to the evidentiary hearing before the GUP Micheli (Judge for the Preliminary Hearing) in autumn 2008 and while additional expertise may sometimes be ordered this was not the case here, save for an assessment of the work done by the Scientific Police labs.

    Consequently, it is almost inevitable that if for a given crime there are multiple defendants and one of them chooses (and it is his indisputable right) the fast track trial, the outcome of his judgment (which is almost always based on a more limited set of evidence or on outdated or superseded ones because they are corrected by subsequent evidence surfaced in the ordinary proceeding) will come to be confirmed by the Supreme Court prior to that of the other defendants who have chosen the ordinary proceeding and, as it is easily seen in this case, it will massively influence it.

    This is a big problem of law in Italy, but in this case it could also have major consequences on any requests for the extradition of Knox as a result of an eventual conviction, since there could be a violation of her constitutional rights (which take precedence over the commitments of the extradition treaty) as the outcome of her case was highly dependent on what was decided in a trial in which she was not represented.

  14. Hide Baert says:

    Hi Amanda,
    Just played ‘ Today’s puzzle’ on Jigzone.com , titled pear tree.
    The puzzle tree (Jig zone) in full, gorgeous blossoms looked eerily alike to ‘your tree’.

    Am I wright or wrong?
    We’ll see.
    Best wishes, Hilde

    PS Just a proposal: It would be lovely if you and some of us, bloggers, could submit a silent, visual message (a self-made drawing or picture).
    Silence speaks louder than words.

  15. Mark (AKA Supernaut) says:

    [img]http://www.amandaknox.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/2014.3.27-Flower_2.jpg[/img]

    This pic intrigues me.

    • K says:

      Lovely photos Amanda. So happy to see spring. Sorry even this page turns into a debate but cest la vie… I sincerely hope you and Raffaele see true justice. If you’re not extradited I fear he has a much larger fight. :( In any case, for this page, smile. TRY to see the beauty in life whilst you’re perpetually flogged with the ugliness. :D Many of us wish this would end for you both (and your families).

  16. Sarah H says:

    From the Oxford University Press, Professor M. Cherif Bassiouni explains why it is not likely that Amanda will be extradited from the U.S. to Italy: the plain language of the treaty.

    http://blog.oup.com/2014/04/is-amanda-knox-extraditable-from-the-united-states-to-italy/

    M. Cherif Bassiouni is Emeritus Professor of Law at DePaul University where he taught from 1964-2012, where he was a founding member of the International Human Rights Law Institute (established in 1990), and served as President from 1990-2007, and then President Emeritus. He is also President, International Institute of Higher Studies in Criminal Sciences, Siracusa, Italy since 1989. He is the author of International Extradition: United States Law and Practice, Sixth Edition.

    . . . . The 1983 U.S.–Italy Extradition Treaty states in article VI that extradition is not available in cases where the requested person has been acquitted or convicted of the “same acts” (in the English text) and the “same facts” (in the Italian text). Treaty interpretation needs to ascertain the intentions of the parties by relying on the plain language and meaning of the words. Italy’s law prohibiting ne bis in idem specifically uses the words stessi fatti, which are the same words used in the Italian version of article VI, meaning “same facts.” Because fatti, or “facts,” may include multiple acts, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals applied the test of “same conduct” in Sindona v. Grant, citing international extradition in US law and practice, based on this writer’s analysis.

    Whatever the interpretation of article VI may be—“same act,” “same facts,” or the broader “same conduct”—Amanda Knox would not be extraditable to Italy should Italy seek her extradition because she was retried for the same acts, the same facts, and the same conduct. Her case was reviewed three times with different outcomes even though she was not actually tried three times. In light of the jurisprudence of the various circuits on this issue, it is unlikely that extradition would be granted. . . .

    • quixotic1 says:

      Even though the article you reference is encouraging, I am forever of a results orientation. So a correction to your analysis is as follows…

      your words…. “Whatever the interpretation of article VI may be—”same act,” “same facts,” or the broader “same conduct”—Amanda Knox WOULD not be extraditable to Italy”

      the body of what Professor M. Cherif Bassiouni actually said was… —Amanda Knox SHOULD not be extraditable to Italy”

      I will not be comfortable with anything less than… —Amanda Knox CAN not be extractable to Italy”

      better yet… —Amanda Knox WILL NOT be extractable to Italy”

      Anything less is unacceptable and only lures supporters into a false sense of winning.

      • Sarah H says:

        You are not correcting my words, you are attempting to correct the professor’s. Both of the paragraphs below the biographical information were written by him. Sorry for the confusion.

        • quixotic1 says:

          You are right, I was wrong. I could have flyspect that better (too many olives in my gin that night). My sentiment remains. We all know this whole affair is wrong in the complete. And I fear that the complete wrong of this is infectuous. If enough Americans can resist being complacent about this then there will be less left to chance. I could go on and on about this.

    • Willis Coleman says:

      This would appear to be good news for Amanda. But the article notes that extradition is often decided on a case by case basis. Two years ago, Manuel Albert Soares was extradited from the US to Portugal under the same circumstances Amanda faces. Since Amanda’s release in 2011 her public approval rating has been on a steady downhill slide. If her popularity drops into OJ Simpson territory, I think she’s going back to Italy regardless of what the law says.

      • Sarah H says:

        Soares’ circumstances were NOTHING like Amanda’s. He didn’t have a co-defendant in a separate fast track trial that produced “facts” that were used against him in his own trial. He wasn’t prevented from having his lawyer question the primary witness against him. And he wasn’t found “innocent” in an appeals trial only to have a higher court throw out the verdict and order a second appeals trial.

        • Sarah H says:

          In other words, the U.S. doesn’t have to re-try the facts of the case in order to refuse extradition. It is enough for them to acknowledge that she was denied basic civil rights guaranteed under both the U.S. and the Italian constitution: the right to examine all evidence and the right to confront her accuser.

      • Angela Smitherman says:

        Really? Do share with us your source for these “public approval ratings”.

      • Samson says:

        The two cases you refer to have no relation to this. OJ Simpson was acquitted, then found responsible for the deaths in a civil action. There were no other suspects, particularly not a confirmed perpetrator in jail for the crime. He does not have a retired judge, a senator, or a vast array of named scientists to challenge the findings of a judge, Nencini, who presided over a non unanimous lay jury in a farcical rubber stamping of an instruction from the ISC which violated Italian law, and a largely anonymous movement of web bloggers. If you are looking forward to the motivation report, think again. It will be an easily dissected piece of fiction to rival Massei. As you know, much has changed since Massei, particularly the scientific certainty that Rudy was correct in stating at what hour and minute Meredith died, and Massei was wrong. The Portugese case is not challenged in the facts, but whether the facts constituted a crime.

      • Wayne says:

        The biggest difference between the OJ trial and the Knox/Sollecito trial was that OJ was very guilty of the crime and Knox and Sollecito are not. That fact will reign over all others as obvious when the State Department reviews the case.

    • Thor Klamet says:

      Here’s a link to the extradition treaty:

      Extradition Treaty

      Article 10 paragraph 3 has some relevant text indicating there must be a “reasonable basis.”

      I’m not sure why this case seems worse than other miscarriages of justice. Earl Washington was also obviously innocent. He confessed to any crime he was asked to confess to but had no knowledge of any of the crimes, not even broad outlines. Todd Willingham was innocent as well. The arson investigation techniques that contradicted the chemical tests and led to his execution have been formally discredited.

      Somehow this case seems even more threatening. Maybe it’s because extradition would be decided at such a high level. It would be a repudiation on a national scale of the rule of law and of reason itself. It’s hard to imagine a U.S. Secretary of State signing off on that, but then the whole case is a little hard to imagine.

      I do have a prediction (might be wishful thinking): They will throw out the bra clasp evidence and acquit RS. The evidence of contamination is direct and irrefutable so that’s easy enough to do. Then I assume they will convict AK and not request extradition.

      Then they can move on to whether or not to put the weatherman in jail for not predicting a lightning strike.

      • Antony says:

        Thor Klamet: “I’m not sure why this case seems worse than other miscarriages of justice.”

        It isn’t worse in terms of injustice as there are many cases where police and judicial systems ignore facts and vindictively pursue innocent people. What makes it compelling is the existence of an internet and media campaign, complete with dedicated websites, committed to sustaining the fictional case for guilt.

        Of course, a part of the guilt campaign is to project their own motives and behaviour onto those who speak up for the truth, including the existence of the organised campaign in the first place.

        “I do have a prediction (might be wishful thinking): They will throw out the bra clasp evidence and acquit RS.”

        Nothing would surprise me in this case any more, but the only predictions I think we can make is that there will be more unpredictable twists.

  17. Sarah H says:

    Nasim claims that it would be hard for US officials to argue that, when they signed the extradition treaty, they were unaware that “finalized judgments against one defendant can be considered against others in a separate trial.” In fact, it would be very easy for the U.S. to argue that they never anticipated and do not approve of the circumstances in this case: that Guede’s testimony in his fast track trial could be used against Amanda and Raffaele, even though their attorneys were prevented from questioning him. The Italian Constitution specifically states that defendants in criminal trials have the right to question those who testify against them or to have them questioned.

    Also, Italian criminal law requires that defendants be found guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Not through a process of osmosis. The US was relying on Italy following its own Constitution and criminal code when it signed the extradition agreement. It would have every right to refuse to cooperate in an extradition under the circumstances.

    Italian Code of Criminal Procedure

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Code_of_Criminal_Procedure

    Article 111 of the Italian Constitution states that

    2. Trials are based on equal confrontation of the parties before an independent and impartial judge. The law has to define reasonable time limits for the proceedings.

    3. In criminal trials, the law provides for timely and confidential information of the accused regarding the nature and reasons of charges brought against them; they are granted the time and means for their defense; they have the right to question those who testify against them or to have them questioned; those who may testify in favor of the accused must be summoned and examined under the same conditions granted to the prosecution; any evidence in favor of the accused must be acknowledged; the accused may rely on the help of an interpreter if they do not understand or speak the language of the proceedings.

    4. In criminal trials, evidence may only be established according to the principle of confrontation between parties. No defendant may be proven guilty on the basis of testimony given by witnesses who freely and purposely avoided cross-examination by the defense.

    • Adriano says:

      Unfortunately I do not know at what level of U.S. court may be deliberate refusal of extradition. Certainly if it is at the level of the state where Amanda lives is more likely a favorable outcome, but if it is at the federal level there may be problems. The problem is that there is not only the case of Amanda, but there are other U.S. citizens in Italy who may have the retaliation by the Italian justice system. A federal court, I believe, will consider these issues very carefully, whether the process is completely abnormal and that certainly has never guaranteed to Amanda and Gabriele a “Right criminal trial.”
      However, there are elements in favor to Amanda about the fact that in the first appeal had a full acquittal, the fact that, in the second appeal, has also obtained an increase of the sentence have been canceled and the scientific analysis required by the court may think that indeed there has been a sort of third level by the supreme Court which has constrained the result of the trial. A fancy way of saying that there was a third effective level of judgment that makes incopatibile criminal proceedings in U.S. level.
      Has to reflect the fact that in the last trial, the judge has not requested that it was performed an immediate imprisonment of Amanda and then Gabriele (something extremely unusual for the Italian legal system, in such serious crimes), this suggests that “someone” has recommended the court not to proceed with the request of imprisonment in order to avoid that a U.S. court could evaluating the criminal trial before the judgment of the Supreme Court. This attitude is really serious and can make me think that the judge’s decision was made under external pressure. On the part of a judge who does not put in prison, a potential murderess, there is a tremendous personal liability in the event that the murderess can repeat the crime.
      Then there is the problem of the civil case, it seems to me that they are 7,400,000 Euro for damages to be paid to the family of the victim (an amount really very high, perhaps too much … according to the criteria used in Italy), in a refusal extradition from the U.S. civil case remains. I do not know how many books will have to write Amanda, expect to pay for what is required.

    • Rob H says:

      If Ms Knox is having sleepless nights over this case, she might try keeping a copy of Article 111 next to her bed – it must surely provide her with sustained confidence that even if the Italian Supreme Court, ultimately, does not right this terrible wrong, the ECHR will do it for them.

      I find it it difficult to believe that anything other than a very eccentric combination of judges at the ECHR would not quote directly from Article 111, as Sarah H has done (and I have done previously) in upholding an application under Article 6, but also that neither would Italy request nor The United States agree to Ms Knox’s extradition until an ECHR application has been considered and not at all if she is successful.

      I quoted this judgement elsewhere on this blog, but it is worth referring to it again (“Diocletus” at JREF actually found it – it’s very recent and itself refers to previous court judgements):

      “Berraru v Romania” (ECHR 18th March 2014):

      “70. The Court reiterates that it has already found that unrestricted access to the case file and unrestricted use of any notes, including, if necessary, the possibility of obtaining copies of relevant documents, are important guarantees of a fair trial. The failure to afford such access has weighed, in the Court’s assessment, in favour of the finding that the principle of equality of arms had been breached (see Matyjek v. Poland, no. 38184/03, §§ 59 and 63, ECHR 2007‑V, and Luboch v. Poland, no. 37469/05, §§ 64 and 68, 15 January 2008).”

      As Ms Knox has stated, it was “devastating” to her defence that her lawyers were not granted access to the “evidence” against her in a timely manner.

      For Mr Sollecito and the bra clasp “evidence”, even now, important laboratory data has still not been disclosed.

      So, we have case law in Europe and the Italian constitution on Ms Knox’s side – and indeed, Mr Sollecito’s.

      Quite some judicial crisis in Italy, I imagine, if the ISC lets things go that far.

    • Willis Coleman says:

      To me osmosis is the tendency of a substance to dissolve completely in solution. I don’t know what it means in a legal context. In fact it takes years of study to have a deep understanding of the relevant constitutional and international law, so it’s not going to be settled by a couple of amateurs quoting the law at each other out of context.

      • Elias says:

        You don’t know that they are attorneys or very talented law students. They are clearly above your level of intelligence.

        They make reasoned arguments. They don’t use snide dismissals, and they don’t try and hound an innocent person with baked up nonsense unbacked by any evidence that would up to forensic examination.

  18. Chris Frait says:

    Not bad. Ordinary things but nice pictures. Hope this means you are finally starting to move on with your life and put all this other stuff behind you.

  19. Nasim says:

    Reply to Antony APRIL 2, 2014 AT 12:23:

    Amanda and Raffaele could have met Rudy around 8:18pm when Patrick’s text was received while her phone was in a cell that is not the preferred one for Raffaele’s apartment. Further evidence for this is that Raffaele initially said that they had been strolling around town that evening. I wouldn’t rule out that the met up later.

    I don’t know what time they entered the cottage, or whether it was together or separately. The attack on Meredith either took place just before 10pm when there was unusual activity on Meredith’s phones, or later when the neighbor’s heard the scream.

    I think Curatolo was mistaken about the times but he probably saw Amanda and Raffaele in Piazza Grimana for a considerable period that evening. I agree with John Follain’s suggestion that Mignini was wrong not to question Curatolo more extensively in court. He chose to try to protect his witness rather than get to the truth.

    There is no plausible route of contamination to account for Raffaele’s DNA on the bra clasp. The only tenable interpretations are that Raffaele touched the clasp or it was a police frame-up. I and probably most courts assume good faith on the part of the police absent any clear evidence to the contrary.

    • Rob H says:

      Tell me, “nasim”, because I think this just might take us all a little bit further, what is your understanding of the term “reasonable doubt” as in, “Guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt”, as it should be applied in this case, consistent with Italian law?

      • Nasim says:

        I don’t know what you’re getting at. To me “reasonable doubt” means the case for innocence must be plausible, which it is not (thought understanding why takes more work than most people are willing to invest).

        • Antony says:

          Nasim, setting aside your view of what is plausible, your statement is simply wrong. “Reasonable doubt” is a measure of the case for guilt, not the case for innocence.

        • Rob H says:

          Ok, “nasim” – so your understanding of the meaning in the application of the term “reasonable doubt” in order to acquit, is that “the case for innocence must be plausible” – thanks for that.

          By the way, can you link me (us) to the post on PMF dealing with the “around 28 different signs” of a clean up at the cottage. Probably my own incompetence, but I cannot find it.

          I understand that you aren’t an academic, but normally when it is pointed out that you have not provided evidence for a claim that you have made, the appropriate response is to cite or link to a source that has some verifiable credibility – either because of qualification – a published scientific opinion from an expert in the field, or a crime scene investigator or court transcripts of expert testimony.

          Nevertheless, we must run with what you have – so, a link please.

          • Nasim says:

            There you go:
            “perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=611&p=163258#p163258″
            I don’t necessarily agree with all of it but it’s a good starting point.

          • Sarah H says:

            I’ve just looked at the list. All of the 28 points can be summed up like this: anywhere there is a wall, door, or floor that isn’t a solid sheet of blood, there must have been clean-up involved. Any drip or smear proves there was clean-up involved. Footprints prove there was clean-up involved. And of course, the box of tissue and the lamp must have been part of the clean-up, too.

          • Antony says:

            Nasim, you must be aware that nothing on PMF can be discussed impartially. I don’t have the stamina to work through the list you cite, but I can’t see anything of merit in it.

        • Mark (AKA Supernaut) says:

          Nasim sez;

          “To me “reasonable doubt” means the case for innocence must be plausible…”

          Jesus just went past me on a bicycle.

          OK.

          What I mean is;

          **** Christ on a bike!!****.

          This is what Amanda and Raff have to deal with.

        • Mark (AKA Supernaut) says:

          Deep inhalation ………….

          So, “Nasim”, there is no such thing as “presumption of innocence” or “proof of guilt” to complicate reality.

          In the world you live in, only “plausible innocence” matters.

          Would you care to expand on this fascinating precept?

        • Mark (AKA Supernaut) says:

          “Nasim” just said;

          “….thought understanding why takes more work than most people are willing to invest ”

          ¿que?

          Shurely shome mishtake?

        • Sarah H says:

          Nasim, if that is what you think reasonable doubt means, you’ve got it exactly backwards. Under the concept of finding guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, it is up to the prosecutor to prove guilt — beyond a reasonable doubt — not up to the defendants to make a “plausible” case for innocence.

          There is a giant hole of reasonable doubt in this case, but the biggest part is that were was abundant evidence of Guede in the murder room and in and on the victim’s body. But nothing in the room or on the victim connecting the murder with Amanda. The unlikelihood of Amanda being involved in the murder under these circumstances is so high that it doesn’t matter what other suspicious elements the prosecutor decided to toss in. You can’t clean up invisible DNA and invisible fingerprints. Amanda wasn’t there.

      • Andrea Jonasson says:

        Presumption of innocence and reasonable doubt should be considered together.

        Presumption of innocence helps to guard against confirmation bias toward guilt in the interpretation of evidence. It also places the burden of proof on the prosecution, where it belongs.

    • Mark Saha says:

      Nasim, re your 4/2 at 12:23 —

      I doubt John Kerry will be much impressed when Italy present these arguments as grounds for extraditing Knox.

      • Mark Saha says:

        Nasim –

        I understand Italy is already preparing an expanded list of evidence to present to Kerry. Allegedly included are:

        A police officer at the scene reported Knox had body odor, which proves she lied about having taken a shower.

        Manfromatlan has permitted the Italians to quote him that “someone capable of lying is capable of murder”.

        Giobbi intends to tell Kerry how, when he took her back to the crime scene, Knox swiveled her tush at him and shouted “Hoopla!”

        Police were unable to find Knox’s fingerprints in Meredith’s room or common areas of the apartment.

        When you consider police found Amanda’s goose neck reading lamp in Meredith’s room the evidence really starts to pile up.

        The whole world will be looking to see what the State Department will do when confronted with this mountain of evidence against her.

        I have to wonder why Knox doesn’t throw in the towel and confess. What makes her imagine she can beat this?

        • elbee says:

          Exactly, but don’t forget there was a “clean-up,” so thorough and obliging that it left blood spots and a mat with a brown foot mark which turned out to be blood in the bathroom.

    • Som Nathan says:

      Nasim, you are infected with disease now recognized as MLS – Mignini’s Lies Syndrome.
      No cure so far.

    • Angela Smitherman says:

      If the attack occurred around 10 p.m. and Meredith arrived home around 9 p.m., I wonder why she never removed her jacket before being attacked? Or why she never called her mother back?

      • Nasim says:

        According to her family Meredith was in the habit of making calls for safety reasons when she was walking alone at night. Once home she had no real reason to call, having already had a lengthy conversation with her mom just a few hours earlier. It’s a little odd that Meredith didn’t take her jacket off but there are many possible explanations for that. Maybe Amanda could shed some light on her usual routine.

        • HH says:

          Meredith was in the habit of calling her mother to check on her every night because her mother had diabetes and she worried about her health.

          You keep looking at this backwards. There are a lot of “weird things that don’t make sense” piling up and that cast doubt on the police’s version of the story. Instead of taking them into account, you ignore them with the philosophy “well Knox killed Meredith, I don’t know how, I don’t know why. There’s a lot that doesn’t make sense. But I’ll just ignore it all because I know she did it. Somehow.”

          “The evidence must have been there, but this delusional evidence that I so believe in wasn’t found, so that means Knox cleaned it up. More proof of her guilt!” You sound ridiculous.

          They can’t even confirm that Amanda and Raffaele were at the cottage that night, they just throw it in the defense’s lap to “prove that they weren’t.” Then they do the best they can to deny both defendants the necessary tools to prove their innocence.

          By the way, you aren’t in Meredith’s head, so why are you trying to reason away her actions? Admit it, it’s also strange that someone called her bank about 10:00 and didn’t use the correct area code. It indicates that someone who wasn’t familiar with the phone used it. Add the fact that people were broken down outside of the cottage and they said it was dark and quiet around 10:00-11:00. Oh yeah, and the fact that Meredith’s dinner was in some sort of limbo in her stomach, pointing towards a TOD that was an hour earlier.

          Anyway, let’s try your scenario out. Meredith gets home, calls her mother, hangs up after a couple of rings, then loafs around in her jacket and sweater about an hour until Knox and Sollecito show up with Guede in tow. Or Knox and Sollecito show up and then interrupt their lovemaking to open the door to allow a stranger to use their bathroom.

          Meanwhile, while this is going on Meredith is sitting on her bed, still fully clothed, pressing buttons on her phone like a two year old and accidentally dialing her bank. And then, when Meredith grows bored with her phone. She then decides to use (not her bathroom) but Laura and FIlomena’s bathroom and is shocked and disgusted by the poop in the toilet. She starts screaming at Amanda and the argument escalates into a battle to the death. Meanwhile, Rudy and Raffaele, both horny, attack Meredith while Amanda masterminds the whole thing, brandishing Raffaele’s kitchen knife (which she was just carrying around.)

          And then Amanda spends the entire evening cleaning up the crime scene and framing Rudy Guede and then over tea and crumpets with Perugia law enforcement opens her big mouth and blames the whole thing on her boss, who she would have known for a fact was innocent.

          • Sarah H says:

            This would be extremely funny except that it’s the actual case that the prosecution just made in the most recent trial. I can’t believe the lives of two people and their families are hanging in the balance because of this.

          • K says:

            LOL. That’s a framer. Love it. People really can be dense!
            Just the fact and scope of Rudy’s priors… I mean, hello….?

          • Nasim says:

            No one ever said Meredith spoke with her mom every night. You must be thinking of Raffaele and his dad. As much as I’d like to, I don’t think it would be fruitful for me to debate your cartoon of the prosecution case.

          • HH says:

            Nasim: Yes they did. That was why Meredith had a UK phone that she used specifically for calling England. It was also stated that Meredith worried about her mother’s health due to the fact that she had diabetes. Raffaele’s father doesn’t have diabetes.

        • Angela Smitherman says:

          If Meredith had “no real reason to call” upon arriving home then why did she? She did call her mother after arriving home which is a matter of record.

          As for “possible explanations” name a few. I didn’t ask Amanda, I asked you.

          • Nasim says:

            If you believe, as the police did, that the person on the parking garage video at 9pm is Meredith, then the aborted 20.56 phone call must have been made just after she and Sophie parted ways.

          • Angela Smitherman says:

            “If you believe, as the police did, that the person on the parking garage video at 9pm is Meredith, then the aborted 20.56 phone call must have been made just after she and Sophie parted ways.”

            Which is also approximately when Meredith arrived home. Was this aborted call to her mother? She evidently did have “real reason” to call her mother that night.

            As for your statement above that “No one ever said Meredith spoke with her mom every night”, maybe not every SINGLE night but Meredith’s own father contradicts you by writing “we would talk ALMOST EVERY EVENING, as she did to her mother and sister.” See Kercher’s book – page 69 of 291/Kindle location 970 of 4105 – for confirmation that this statement refers to when Meredith moved to Perugia.

        • Rose Marie says:

          All evidence points to Meredith being killed soon after she arrived home. Stomach contents, Rudy’s testimony, her shoes, placement of other objects. Meredith called home frequently. She would likely have tried to call once she was home as she hadn’t called on the way home ( she was walking most of the way with her friend). She did not have an outdoor jacket on- it was an Adidas zip sweatshirt- the type of thing anyone would wear indoors in a place without central heating.

          • Nasim says:

            I’m confused. You say all evidence points to Meredith being killed soon after arriving home, but then you say it’s not significant that she was still wearing her sweatshirt because the cottage lacked central heating.

    • HH says:

      Nasim: I agree. I usually assume good faith on the part of the police. However, in this case, there is loads of evidence to the contrary. It was either a police frame-up or contamination.

    • Antony says:

      Nasim, I don’t want to be hard on you because you’ve had the courtesy to reply in a direct way. However, your response is simply lame. It doesn’t match the evidence; for a start, Amanda was seen at Raff’s flat at 8:40pm by an independent witness, Jolana Popovic; there is no sign of Rudy Guede.

      Even if your cellphone evidence is true (which I don’t think it is), and the speculation about meeting Guede were correct, it means she went back to Raff’s flat after meeting Guede, so it is no longer indicative of joint action – quite the reverse, really.

      The fact that you can’t put a time on going to the cottage just means you have no evidence that it even happened. Again, the time of the attack before 10pm puts Amanda and Raff in the clear, and your conceding that it might not be at the time of the (contradictory) reports of a scream means that the reports of a scream are not evidence at all. The same goes for your doubts about Curatolo’s evidence. Nothing about the guilt hypothesis hangs together.

      There is no plausible route of contamination to account for Raffaele’s DNA on the bra clasp.

      Not just lame, but ridiculous. Contamination is actually proved by the fact of 4 unidentified male DNA profiles on the clasp. We know for sure it happened, and there are any number of ways it could have happened. For a start, the crime scene was already hopelessly compromised before the clasp was collected. Secondly, there is well-known Youtube footage of the clasp being “found”, in which the investigators pass it from hand to hand, wearing visibly dirty gloves and holding it by the very metal hooks that were later claimed to carry Raff’s DNA. They then drop it or place it on the floor and mysteriously photograph it next to the marker “Y” – as though that is to be used as evidence of where it was found; but it’s not where it was found!

      The only tenable interpretations are that Raffaele touched the clasp

      Well, of course Raff could have touched it – he was a visitor in the cottage before the murder! What couldn’t have happened is that he, or anybody else, touched it in the course of the murder, because any attacker would have grasped the bra itself or the strap, and not the metal hooks.

      or it was a police frame-up.

      That’s known as a false dichotomy. The investigation was so inept, and the precautions against contamination so non-existent, that contamination was practically inevitable.

      I and probably most courts assume good faith on the part of the police

      Is this the way your thinking works? There doesn’t need to be evidence of guilt, because we “assume good faith” on the part of the police? Why have a trial at all?

      absent any clear evidence to the contrary.

      This is known as “reversal of the burden of proof”. But I’d be interested to know what “evidence to the contrary” you would actually take seriously. The entire investigation and prosecution was irregular right from the beginning. The rights of the accused were trampled, police destroyed evidence, they hid evidence, they lied in testimony, and they changed their case at every stage of the legal process. There is of course, massive and continual evidence to the contrary of good faith, yet the travesty trundles on oblivious.

      • Nasim says:

        You really think it’s plausible that Raffaele touched the bra clasp before the murder? By “route” of contamination I mean that there must be a source with LOTS of Raffaele’s DNA and a way for it to get on the clasp by hitching a ride on one or at most two intermediates. I wouldn’t disagree that the police sometimes lied but it’s a big leap from there to manufacturing evidence. Plus even without the clasp there is enough evidence to convict.

        • Antony says:

          Nasim: You really think it’s plausible that Raffaele touched the bra clasp before the murder?

          It’s far more plausible than that he touched it during the murder. Remember we are talking about the hook of the clasp, not the fabric of the bra. Nobody, not even the wearer, touches that part while the garment is in normal use – only when picking it up, for example, during sorting clothes. Raff was a visitor to the cottage in the days before the murder, and it could easily have picked up his DNA at that time.

          By “route” of contamination I mean that there must be a source with LOTS of Raffaele’s DNA and a way for it to get on the clasp by hitching a ride on one or at most two intermediates.

          Again, setting aside questions of the validity of your criteria, there was, visibly, lots of something on the gloves of the investigators when they were filmed holding the clasp by the metal hooks and passing it from hand to hand.

          I wouldn’t disagree that the police sometimes lied

          So, big admission. They did not act in good faith.

          but it’s a big leap from there to manufacturing evidence.

          Both the bra clasp and the knife were produced by conjuring tricks. The circumstances of their collection do not have any credibility. The testing methods used to produce the results had no scientific validity.

          You literally couldn’t make it up. If a crime writer had police just walking in and the first thing they picked up was exactly the evidence the needed for their case – not once but twice – then no publisher would have time for them. No reader would continue past the incident.

          Plus even without the clasp there is enough evidence to convict.

          That’s nonsense. All of the “evidence” presented is blatantly sham, and meaningless.

          • Nasim says:

            I tend to agree that the presence of Raffaele’s DNA on the hook suggests that it was deposited after the clasp was severed from the rest of the bra. I still don’t think there is a plausible route for contamination with his DNA.

          • Antony says:

            Nasim: “I still don’t think there is a plausible route for contamination with his DNA.”

            Elsewhere you claim you never said that the defence has the burden (of proof). Yet it is implicit in all of your posts, such as this one. The prosecution has to show that contamination could not have happened. They manifestly fail to do that. In any case, the 4 unidentified male DNA contributors detected is positive proof of contamination.

            As for “plausible routes”, you don’t accept that publicly-available video of the investigators handling the metal hooks wearing dirty gloves, is footage of contamination actually happening?

        • Sarah H says:

          The independent court-appointed experts said that after the bra clasp had been kicked around the floor for six weeks there were so much contamination, so many alleles of DNA, that they could have found almost any male’s pattern in the DNA. Even the judge’s pattern. Even yours, Nasim.

          It would be like finding the letters N-A-S-I-M in a large bowl of vegetable soup.

          How do we know YOU didn’t help Guede kill Meredith? For all we know, a pattern matching your DNA could have been found in all that contamination on the bra clasp. You knew Meredith at least as well as Raffaele did — which was not at all.

          • Sarah H says:

            I meant to say “alphabet soup.” Mea culpa.

          • Nasim says:

            Professor Vecchiotti’s comment that even the judge’s DNA could be on the clasp was highly prejudicial and wrong. The prosecution would have had a good argument for a mistrial on that basis alone.

          • HH says:

            Nasim: So you know more than the independent expert appointed by the courts? You’re in the position to point out that his analysis was wrong?

        • Anna (a.k.a. Niteangel on injusticeanywhere) says:

          Nasim, Raffaele’s DNA was low template.

          Chris Halkides: “Does Raffaele Sollecito¹s DNA fall into the category of low template DNA, and if so, should two separate amplifications have been run?”

          David Balding: “There’s no strict definition of “low-template” but broadly yes the peaks associated with Sollecito are low”

          • Nasim says:

            Raffaele’s DNA is not low template. What happens when you transcribe an interview is you can’t see what the speaker is doing. From the context it is clear to me that, after saying Sollecito’s peaks were low, Balding looked at the traces and noted that they were above the levels normally considered low template.

    • Mark says:

      There are 4 possible explanations for Raffaele’s DNA on the bra clasp (which also apply for the other male profiles found on it):

      1. They touched the clasp prior or after the crime, but not as participants of the crime.
      2. They touched the clasp as participants of the crime.
      3. They never touched the clasp but contamination occurred at some point.
      4. It was planted by the police.

      I think all explanations seem improbable, but one of them must be true. We will likely never know which one.

      But one thing is sure, explanation #2 can’t apply to Raffaele and not to the other male profiles simply on the basis of arbitrarily wishing Raffaele to be the only one culpable. We would need corroborating evidence, and since the crime scene evidence all points to Rudy Guede being Meredith’s sole killer and rapist, beyond a reasonable doubt, it is simply useless conjecture to think we can discern the story behind the clasp DNA results.

      • Nasim says:

        Not really because the other “profiles” (that term applies loosely because they are probably just fragments of DNA) are low copy number, and contamination is always more plausible with LCN than when large numbers of DNA molecules have to travel en masse and deposit themselves in the same spot.

        • Mark says:

          No tests were done on the clasp to determine the biological origin of the DNA. I’m not aware of anything where you can prove how a particular profile was deposited simply by interpreting modest differences in peak heights on the electropherogram.

          Professor David Balding classifies Raffaele’s profile as being low template, and he seems to be pro-prosecution. I don’t think the difference between Raffaele’s profile and the other contributors is significant, and it’s nowhere near as significant as the primary contributor (Meredith).

          A defense expert, Professor Adriano Tagliabracci, pointed out at least one of the additional male contributor peak heights was even higher than Raffaele’s, and many were relatively close in range.

          And none of this takes into account the collection of the clasp, which was beyond problematic.

          No, the bra clasp is not a useful piece of evidence and is itself not corroborated by the other known facts of the case. The facts show the bra was cut off to expose the victim’s breasts. She was rolled over on her back to ease access for sexual assault, and to view her naked breasts (since the perpetrator went through the trouble of cutting off the bra). The person who did this left a clear handprint in her blood on the pillow he used to lift up her pelvis to facilitate sexual assault. The handprint as well as The DNA inside her vagina matched known burglar Rudy Guede. So a few profiles out of the blue on a clasp that wasn’t used to remove the bra during the attack, with merely one of them belonging to Raffaele, is not something that overrides the case against Rudy Guede or creates one against Raffaele.

          I think the fact that you think (as stated in a previous post of yours) that there is still enough evidence for conviction even if you throw out the DNA results against the students speaks to a deeper misunderstanding of the evidence and an inability to avoid delusional conclusions.

          • Antony says:

            No, the bra clasp is not a useful piece of evidence and is itself not corroborated by the other known facts of the case. The facts show the bra was cut off to expose the victim’s breasts. She was rolled over on her back to ease access for sexual assault, and to view her naked breasts (since the perpetrator went through the trouble of cutting off the bra).

            Mark, while I agree with your general conclusions (the bra clasp is fatally compromised as evidence in multiple ways), contributors on JREF have concluded that the bra clasp was torn off, not cut off. There is a visible line of stitch holes just inside the cut edge, which shows that it is the result of the manufacture of the item. This was a detail missed in all of the trials.

            The interpretation is that the killer hauled Meredith’s body into a different position, with the bra being used as a hand-hold. The stitching holding the clasp soon gave way, but not before causing the hooks to be bent and distorted. Then the torn-off end simply fell off, as it was no longer at an angle where the damaged hooks could engage.

            He could have done this deliberately so as to molest her, or could have become excited at the sight of her breasts, exposed unintentionally, which led him to the sexual assault.

            Of course this doesn’t affect your general conclusions.

          • Nasim says:

            You can seriously look at the bra clasp Y profile, seen on page 126 of:
            “www.injusticeinperugia.org/testimonianza2.pdf”
            and not see a significant difference between Sollecito’s peaks and the other junk DNA???
            And Antony is right that there is no evidence the bra was cut to show her breasts, or that there is a scintilla of evidence to support the notion that Rudy is a necrophiliac.

          • Mark says:

            Yes Nasim I understand you’re from one of the “putting Rudy first” websites (PMF or TJMK or whatever) but when somebody leaves their handprint in freshly spilled blood from a forcefully stripped naked stab victim and their DNA in the victim’s genitalia that could only have been exposed after the attack there’s really no other conclusions to be drawn.

            Also Anthony I think it’s ludicrous to suggest somebody would drag somebody by a bra and not expect it to be torn off or come loose. And Meredith was not wearing only a bra when she was attacked. Her undressing was clearly deliberate for sexual gratification. I understand many people have a deep desire to defend “poor Rudy” but the evidence demonstrates he attacked then raped Meredith, soaking his various extremities in her blood then washing off and hitting up the dance floors.

          • HH says:

            Nasim: Of course not. Meredith was probably in the process of dying while Rudy was molesting her. The ME said she had about 10 minutes of full consciousness after the fatal wound.

            I don’t see how that makes Rudy look any better though. In fact, I think it makes him worse.

      • Drew says:

        Mark,

        interesting, you mention the other male profiles on it. So there really was unidentified DNA at the murder scene? I’ve been looking for information about whether this was the case, as it was never clear to me.

    • Bob Magnetti says:

      Nasim’s scenario includes the following:

      — ‘Could have’

      — ‘Wouldn’t rule out’

      — ‘Don’t know what time’

      — ‘Either took place before–‘

      — ‘–or later’

      — ‘I think–‘

      — ‘He probably’

      — ‘Probably most courts assume–‘

      – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

      Of course the kicker is his “no plausible route of contamination to account for Raffaele’s DNA on the bra clasp”. Why does he ignore the C-V report? Why does he ignore the possibility of Raf’s DNA being deposited on the door knob when attempting to break into the bedroom? How about planting by the police in the theatrical collection scenario?

      • Nasim says:

        Conti and Vecchiotti never proposed a plausible route for contamination. Their argument was basically that once you count a certain number of protocol violations the bra clasp ceases to have any value. That’s more like the five-second rule (for food dropped on the ground) than accepted legal doctrine. As regards Raffaele possibly gripping the door handle, there could not plausibly be enough touch DNA there to account for the DNA on the bra clasp. Plus there’s no reason why an investigator would come into contact with the handle since the door was always open.

        • Amanda says:

          Burden of proof demands that the accuser guarantee evidence is reliable – by respecting standards & not flagrantly disrespecting protocol.

          • Nasim says:

            Are you saying that if a piece of Natalee Holloway’s bra turned up with Joran Van der Sloot’s DNA on it, that should not be considered as evidence against him because it wasn’t found according to “protocol”?

          • Rob H says:

            The straight answer to your question , “nasim”, is: – It depends where it was found and in what circumstances. I do not doubt that the bra clasp is “evidence” against Mr Sollecito – the problem is, it isn’t very good evidence for numerous reasons. You have previously stated that there is “no doubt” he touched the bra clasp. Well, if he was in the room, isn’t there also “no doubt” that he touched something else – Ms Kercher’s clothes as part of his apparent role in restraining her, for example?

            Where did he put his feet etc etc? If he can leave, according to you, “abundant” amounts of DNA on the metal clasp by touching it (after it was torn from the bra, again according to you) then why not the fabric attached to it? And, since he must be a “shedder” in order to have left the “abundant” DNA with a touch contact, then, it follows that he would have left DNA elsewhere – or didn’t he “touch”, seize, grab or hold Ms Kercher or her clothes?

            The bra clasp was either contaminated from environmental DNA within the apartment, from the laboratory or by malice.

            But the idea of comparing Mr Sollecito with van der Sloot is positively ludicrous if you know anything at all about his history (van der Sloot).

            It is interesting however, that you bring Ms Holloway’s case up, which of course, has nothing to compare it to Ms Kercher’s. It is a disturbing feature of the more notorious of the “colpevolisti” tribe that there is a profound and widespread obsession with lithe, murdered young women.

            No disrespect meant to you, of course.

        • Rose Marie says:

          Contamination does not have to be proven. Rigorous and robust evidence collection, transfer and testing DO have to be demonstrated- and it was shown in many ways that there were errors, mistakes, lies and cover ups. Therefore, contamination is possible, which is all that is needed to know that this and other evidence are not legitimate or valid. Together, this shows the case does not meet burden of proof (guilt beyond a reasonable doubt).

    • Sarah H says:

      Amanda and Raffaele’s attorneys were not allowed to question Guede at trial, and yet his testimony was used against them. That violates a basic civil right protected by both the United States and the European Convention on Human Rights, to which Italy is a party. Thus, it is very likely that the European Convention will rule in favor of Amanda and Raffaele. And very unlikely that Italy will ever succeed in extraditing Amanda.

      • Nasim says:

        Italian law is pretty clear that finalized judgments against one defendant can be considered against others in a separate trial. It would be hard for US officials to argue that they were unaware of that when they signed the extradition treaty. Likewise I would be surprised if the ECHR has not adjudicated similar cases already.

        • Sarah H says:

          Please point to a case upheld by the ECHR in which Defendant A is found guilty in a fast track trial and co-Defendant B in a full trial; and where lawyers for the co-Defendant B were prevented from questioning Defendant A, who gave testimony against B.

          It would be EASY for U.S. officials to argue that they weren’t aware of that possibility when they signed the treaty.

          • Nasim says:

            I’m getting out of my depth on these issues of international law, so I think I’ll stick to those aspects of the case that I know. Whatever is eventually decided has no bearing on what really happened the night of November 1, 2007.

        • Rose Marie says:

          You are missing the significance of the due process issue. The ruling in the Guede trial implicating K&S is illegitimate and would be in any civilized justice system.

        • Sarah H says:

          It would be easy. The treaty was ratified in 1984. The fast-track trial was not created until 1990. The US could truthfully argue that they never anticipated that a fast-track trial would be invented that could determine “facts” in a trial against one co-defendant that could be subsequently be used against co-defendants in a separate full trial, depriving the co-defendants of an opportunity to question evidence and confront their accusers.

    • Nick Green (UK) says:

      “There is no plausible route of contamination to account for Raffaele’s DNA on the bra clasp.”
      That you can think of.

      Here’s one: Raffaele spent a while trying to break down Meredith’s door. His skins cells are all over the door and the handle. Investigators touch the door; they then pick up the bra clasp with the same gloves. What’s so complex to understand?

      Here’s another: the clasp is tested in a lab in which Raffaele’s DNA is already present. The attempt to perform low-copy-number DNA testing by an unqualified practitioner on unsuitable equipment, breaking every necessary procedure, creates the false reading.

      There are many more. There is a free app on Google Play that enables logical thinking (I expect). Go get it and think again.

    • Andrea Jonasson says:

      From Nasim:

      I think Curatolo was mistaken about the times but he probably saw Amanda and Raffaele in Piazza Grimana for a considerable period that evening. I agree with John Follain’s suggestion that Mignini was wrong not to question Curatolo more extensively in court. He chose to try to protect his witness rather than get to the truth.

      Why do you think that Curatolo is wrong about the times and right about seeing Amanda and Raffaele in the square? Because if he is right about the times he gives them an alibi? If he is wrong about the square then that is one less reason to think Amanda and Raffaele had anything to do with Meredith’s murder?

      Do you see where your thinking is going wrong here? You ignore the parts of Curatolo’s testimony that don’t fit your hypothesis, and accept the parts that do. You are fudging the evidence to fit your theory.

      If Mignini had questioned Curatolo more, he probably could have gotten him to say anything he wanted him to say. The problem is, it wouldn’t necessarily be the truth.

      From Frank Sfarzo’s Perugia Shock regarding Curatolo’s testimony:

      What was needed? Elements setting Amanda and Raffaele out of his house during the crime time? Well, they arrived. Antonio Curatolo, the homeless guy, the first and main Superwitness, the one who was supposed to nail Amanda and Raffaele saw them at the basketball court from 21:30 to 23:30. So, they were not at his place. But, if he’s right, they were not even assailing Meredith.

      Curatolo knew he had to study his part well, that he couldn’t afford to to screw-up. Apparently he was aware of what not to say. The masks and the witches are wrong. So he eliminated them. The buses to the discotheque are fine. So he inserted them. Then he needed to show details, and how he could fix the presence of Amanda and Raffaele to exact times. Who knows how many times he repeated to himself this concept and so he tried. But he tried too much, he added too many details, imaginary details, wrong details.
      ….
      He maybe thought that having seen the lovebirds only for a few minutes wasn’t enough and in an effort to be credible he extended their presence to the whole period, providing them, in this way, an alibi for the crime. Or proving that his testimony was a fake.
      ….
      Curatolo was so worried about fixing the time that besides recalling that he goes to check it to the electronic board –on the other side of the square– he added, today, that he also checks it on his own watch. But he had always stated not to have a watch. So Massei asked him to show his watch. And he didn’t have it. Massei asked him if he could be more precise about his arrival time because 21:30-22:00 was a bit vague. And he did get more precise, much more precise: 21:27-21:28!

      I am surprised that you mention Curatolo at all, Nasim. I had honestly thought that absolutely everyone had given him up as completely unreliable.

  20. Julie Jorgensen says:

    It was really insightful for Amanda to share her photo’s of a peaceful moment in her life, her stopping to smell the proverbial roses. They are beautiful photos.

    Yet it amazed me that within days she had already received 100’s of responses. Many were legitimately thoughtful and kind. Some were not. Some attempted to analyze her psyche or guilt or innocence or personality. One poster shared an intriguing yet sadly true fictional story of how guilters see only what they want to see. (Which I thought was excellent)

    It made me ponder and wonder what people would say if Amanda posted only a blank page. Would some attempt to analalyze her or judge her from that? I have to say based on comments I’ve already read, probably yes. (long sigh) How many hundreds of comments would there be?

    That led me to think, how can we best be a help and support to Amanda right now as she finishes her last semester of school? I think for myself, I’m going to try and keep things simpler and shorter and only post comments when they really have important value. I want Amanda to have all the time and energy she needs for things that are really important to her without so much information overload to have to worry about. That’s what I’m going to try to do. What do you other supporters think? Would it help to give Amanda just a little more breathing room and space?

    • Willis Coleman says:

      I want to know what Amanda thinks about the suggestion that she may have Asperger’s syndrome. Some people who have Asperger’s themselves have taken umbrage, but I’d like to know what Amanda herself thinks.

      • Mark says:

        You’re making the same mistake I did when I first heard about this case which is assuming something in Amanda’s behavior must have preluded the police taking an interest in her.

        In actuality her behavior was irrelevant. They took an interest in her because she was the only one who could have staged the break-in, and they determined the break-in was staged the very first day of the investigation. They set themselves up to solve a case they unknowingly invented for which only one possible suspect could ever exist or be culpable. It was amateur police work and Amanda is still paying the price for it.

      • Sarah H says:

        No one who understands Asperger’s Syndrome would ask such a question, Willis. On the other hand, any intelligent person who happens to have Asperger’s would do a much better job than you of rationally evaluating the evidence, and would realize that Italy’s case against Amanda and Raffaele was fundamentally flawed.

        People with Asperger’s value logic and reason over emotion and gut instincts. A person with Asperger’s would never have the hubris to think, as some people do, that he could just look at Amanda and know she was guilty. The Nencini court might have benefited from a juror with Asperger’s who could have helped to clear away the prosecution’s smoke and mirrors.

      • Julie Jorgensen says:

        How in the world did my comments evoke a comment about Aspergers? I rest my case….people see or hear what they want to regardless of true intentions or even facts.

    • Jack Friend says:

      Julie,
      You raise and make several valid points and your humanity is greatly appreciated. Ultimately, I think it is up to Miss Knox to determine these things. If she decides to ignore this blog that’s her prerogative. I don’t know her so can only speculate that she knows all too well by now how cruel some people can be and has learned to deflect such negative emotions. She was able to survive the loss of her personal liberty.

      I would suggest 2 very important things supporters can do for Amanda:

      1) Write their Senators and Congressman to share their views.

      2) When you read about someone being arrested and charged with a crime in the future don’t rush to judgement and assume that person is guilty. Maintain an open mind.

      Sadly you are correct if she posts a blank page some genius will think he has the answer to all at his fingertips but we have to judge such behavior for what its worth. Some people will attack those in the public eye often for no other reason than to avoid looking at themselves.

    • GT says:

      As usual JJ, you are coherent, intelligent, and honestly an essential positive force here. I am so sick of these morons, but I don’t think Amanda cannot handle herself, she can do what she wants, all for it. Breathing space? She can just not read the blog? Who is forcing her to do that?

  21. Jack Friend says:

    While scanning through the comments on this blog the other day, my mind made what initially seemed a strange connection to how the negative comments brought to mind my love of movies and television shows about zombies and the zombie apocalypse.

    When I was young I liked such movies as I thought monsters were cool and somewhat exciting. The sense of dread the movies created engrossed you into the subject. It was not until I got older that I realized the zombies were really just a prop and were not the main thrust of the story. We were the main thrust of the story. Once the zombies did their thing and broke down the social order, we in turn did what we do best. We turn on one another and allow our most base and selfish interests take over.

    We criticize NBA and MLB players who we feel make too much money and criticize them when they leave our team, yet it is our fanaticism that enables them to make that much money. We criticize the Knox family for using social media and mainstream media publicity to publicize their point of view, yet whatever they spend cannot compare to the resources of the state or the untold tens of millions spent by tabloid papers who could care less about the victim and only about making money. We make death threats against Casey Anthony as though that equates to justice for Caylee and yet thousands of children starve each day throughout the world. We idolize celebrities until they err or state an opinion we don’t like then we burn their records or write hate mail. We speak of popping champagne corks at the thought of Amanda Knox going to prison, yet we do not give much thought to the thousands of women who have died in Syria, Congo, Somalia, Pakistan and on and on.

    Only a coward or a fool fails to realize far more injustice has occurred at the hands of government than by single individuals. Yet many are more than willing to slowly and gradually trade their liberty for a false sense of security.

    I proudly state that I admire Amanda and Raffaele both for refusing to buckle under attack by the state and continuing to fight for their liberty. The easy thing would be to give up and accept ones ill fate so I greatly admire them for not doing so. Sadly I am all too aware that many innocent people in many countries do not have the resources to fight the state. I am also sadly aware that those innocent people who have been exonerated had their lions share of detractors who knew for certain they were guilty.

    I thank Amanda Knox’s family for being there for their daughter and for making me recognize the ends I may have to be willing to go for my own. I would very much like to thank the friend of Amanda Knox who moved to Italy who reminds me clearly of what it means to be a friend and next time I allow pettiness or jealousy to invade my thoughts, I hope to remember such a selfless act.

    And lastly, I thank those who take cheap shots, make nasty remarks, and seemingly like to relish in thinking of another’s loss of liberty for it is you who reminds me most clearly of who the monsters really are.

    “But thus do I counsel you, my friends: distrust all in whom the impulse to punish is powerful!”
    ― Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spake Zarathustra: A Book for All and None

  22. Scott says:

    Hi Amanda, Keep up the nice Photography, the flower pictures are especially good. I hope you are doing well these days…Sincerely, Scott

  23. Daphne says:

    Amanda, the first one is my favourite because it reminds me of the beautiful gift Don Saulo gave you. You have a unique way of capturing that sentiment in this photo.

    • Klaus, germany, stuttgart area says:

      Daphne, this came to my mind in the beginning, too – I assume you are referring
      to the dove shaped necklet. And indeed for the interpretation of being free in mind like a bird regardless on where one is, it doesn’t matter if it’s a dove or a seagull.
      But for me of course the dove is the symbol of the holy spirit,
      a means of communication between God and the individual Christian (me).
      Concretely in my life it meant a gentle affirmation – step by step –
      to be in God’s hand no matter what happens which took quite a long time,
      and I hope that I never come into a situation
      where I cannot say this any longer.
      Over the years I think that this spirit caused inner healing, soothing in difficult situations,
      encouraging in dicey circumstances, and renewing of my personality
      and not rarely meant getting some direction after intensive prayer, sometimes with others.
      Klaus

      • Daphne says:

        Klaus: Hi. Yes, I am also Christian and so I relate to that perfectly. Amanda sensitively explained the significance of the gift in her book. Actually, the dove’s symbolic reference to freedom does relate to the essential spirituality of Christianity quite well.

        • Daphne says:

          By the way, my interest in such symbols stem from what I know about art history; I was never a religious fanatic or anything. But these are definitely the weirdest of times and the dove in Amanda’s photo is somehow very comforting.

  24. Anna (a.k.a. Niteangel on injusticeanywhere) says:

    Hello again Amanda.

    I just heard of this http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/amanda-knox-wins-36000-damages-over-sex-claims/story-e6frfku0-1225843528202 . This is great news, and
    CONGRATULATIONS!

  25. Maggi says:

    Thank you for posting – beautiful how the flowers echo the colour of the tiles – patterns in architecture – nature- even clocks and adding machines repeating themes throughout.
    The seagull perching on top of the cross seems to be making a statement –
    perhaps asking the ‘haters’ and ‘guilters’ as you call them -who perch on here- just what exactly places them in a higher position to judge you without any real scientific evidence.
    What motivates them – How they can live with themselves for devoting themselves to persecution rather than the search for truth and as you are doing – finding beauty in creation.
    Perhaps the light of this season of rebirth and resurrection may guide them to truly examine their hearts, minds and souls regarding what they are doing with their lives and the immense impact their words and actions may have on destroying the lives of the two remaining innocent youth.
    ( There seem to have been so many who have profited from the tragedy of this brutal murder – investigators, prosecutors, media, writers, filmmakers and the list goes on – profiting – protecting or building their careers – on the lives of three innocent young people.)
    Plunging three families into what seems like an eternity of suffering – prolonging healing and recovery.
    I imagine you allow their comments on here because it gives you a ‘safe place’ to try to reason with the unreasonable – here you have some back up – those who can be counted on to try to counteract some of the ugly lies and hatred from bullies that runs amok on the internet –
    May you always continue to see the beauty of creation.

  26. BigDinBoise says:

    This troll should be ignored.

  27. Mark (AKA Supernaut) says:

    Hmmm – multiple choice!

    I’ll have to contemplate these images for a little longer before I decide which I like best.

    In the meantime;

    courage!!!!

  28. heidi says:

    Not fooled? Sorry to break it to you but you my friend have been duped. I bet you also believe the media fluff that isn’t even in court documents … If were going there. If you actually believe that police tell the truth about everything in this case than you must be an idiot.

  29. Antony says:

    Notfooled: All you Amanda Knox fans are a bunch of suckers.

    Moderator, please remove these abusive posts. They add nothing to the discussion.

  30. Sarah H says:

    I agree. Amanda responds to everyone politely, even to fools like you.

    I don’t know where she gets her strength, but I suspect it’s from her wonderful family.

  31. Mark says:

    Amanda’s innocence can be realized self evidently by simply reading the Massei report. Her words or actions here on this blog or in the media don’t factor into it.

  32. Elias says:

    lol, Thanks for that anonymous troll.

  33. Andrea Jonasson says:

    It must be spring in Seattle:) I love the flowers and the pussy willows, though I must say that my favorite image is the funny keyboard.

    We are still pining for spring where I live. It was -21C when I woke up this morning. I expect it will be another three weeks before the ice goes out on the lake and we see green things growing.

    • Doug Moodie says:

      Where is that? I live in Minnesota USA. Today we had a dusting of snow but later in the week we are predicted to get 10 -20 cm .

      • Andrea Jonasson says:

        I am in Saskatchewan, Canada. It snowed here yesterday, too. It is a really long winter this year. We should have highs a little above freezing this week, so the snow should go soon. It is still piled up past my knees in the front yard.

        If the average global temperature is rising, it must be really hot somewhere else :-)

        • Doug Moodie says:

          Really, really hot. We are looking at a foot of snow through Saturday…. oh well, spring can’t be too far away.

  34. Gregory Thomson says:

    Amanda: Your own housekeeping rules….delete spam, and that should include off topic. You let haters run free, in essence, the haters PR which is composed of discombobulated pathetic morons get to trash every thing you post, this is your choosing, we don’t like it. Why feed the trolls? They love it. And the people who care are drowned out in the mountain of BS which you alone allow. it just convinces me over again how you were victimized in the first place. I wish I could visit a place where you don’t entertain all this shit. Your facebook account was wonderful, until you just let any moron join…..duh? Now you have no facebook. You post a bunch of cool pictures, but we must wade thru hater bullshit….get a grip girl, take control!

    • Willis Coleman says:

      How dare you tell Amanda how to deal with her guilt. Don’t you think it’s frankly just a bit bizarre that you can’t stand how Amanda is being treated here when she herself has no problem with it. Put yourself in her place. She’s free, and will remain so for years to come. She’s sitting on a mountain of cash. The one thing she can’t buy is respect from those who think she’s guilty. So she sets up a blog to try to hash it out WITH US. Not a small cadre of codependents who want to have her for themselves and control her. She doesn’t want that.

      • Sarah H says:

        She didn’t set up a blog to hash it out with hateful people like you, Willis. Talk about hubris! She’s an author, and all authors set up websites and talk about their books. This isn’t a form of therapy, but a way for Amanda to connect with her readers and her potential readers.

        Like others here, I’d be happier if someone deleted the hate talk, but I respect Amanda’s decision to let people like you expose themselves. And I hope that the activities of guilters here help her sell even more books.

      • HH says:

        Willis: How can you spout off about what Amanda wants when you fail to actually listen to anything she has to say?

        Interesting, you write “Not a small cadre of codependents who want to have her for themselves and control her” in the same sentence where you are stating every single thought that you imagine goes through her head as fact. I count you among that cadre of codependents you mention. You can’t stay away from this page to save your life.

        You’re fighting with someone, but it sure isn’t Amanda. You’re fighting with a cartoon character and it’s pathetic.

        Why are guilters such hypocrites?

      • Antony says:

        Willis Coleman: She’s free, and will remain so for years to come. She’s sitting on a mountain of cash.

        What a revealing comment. Have you really no concept of what it costs to run a legal defence to criminal charges?

        The one thing she can’t buy is respect from those who think she’s guilty.

        That’s only because your views hang on an irrational belief with no substance. It’s a problem that stems from you, not from her. You are neither respectful nor deserving of respect.

        • Willis Coleman says:

          Her expenses were not anything close to $4 million. To their great shame not only Amanda but Amanda’s entire family help propagate this lie. And if you ask how I know, we have at least three sources with first-hand knowledge of the situation one of whom is Frank Sfarzo. The others I don’t want to name here.

          • Rob H says:

            You cannot do the maths and you do not take in what you are told, “willis”.

            Other than that, I am entirely certain that you simply have no idea whatsoever of the state of Ms Knox’s finances, nor is it any of your business.

            Ms Knox”s advance was $3.8m gross (as published). You need to deduct the cost of agent’s fees, collaboration fees etc and taxes. It really doesn’t take a genius to work out that this reduces the figure, minimally by 50 per cent.

            Now, what does a genius like you think that it costs to fund scores of trans-atlantic flights, accommodation costs and other expenses for her family?

            So, deduct that, add in legal fees and then you can come to a more realistic conclusion of the size of Ms Knox’s “mountain of cash” if you really want to obsess about it.

            This has got absolutely nothing to do with the case against her.

            Your stalking is apparently getting worse…”we have at least three sources…” etc.

          • Julie Jorgensen says:

            Willis, do you truly think Amanda is rolling in money? She rides a bike for transportation and shops at Good Will. Hardly the life of luxury. Amanda is a very frugal and simple person who has spent every dime made on that book to pay back 2 mortgages, many family members, taxes, publicist fees, fee’s we have no idea about as well as huge continuing legal fees. She has no idea when this will end or how much she’ll need to sustain her continued attempts at proving her innocence and freeing herself from 6 long years of injustice. You have not walked in Amanda’s shoes nor her families and are asinine in your continued attempts at shaming her every action.

    • Nick Green says:

      Although, what this blog does demonstrate is someone who is amiable and reasonable to a fault. Someone who is clearly far less of a psychopath than (probably) the majority of ordinary people. It serves to make the guilters all the more absurd. It has that benefit.

    • Elias says:

      I don’t think she is posting a lot of the worst haters. I think we are just getting a sampling of the most “polite” ones so we can see the tip of the iceberg she is dealing with.

      One could make the case that she might be better/happier/etc., if she had a friend filter out the hater/hateful posts before she culled what to approve. –I.E., that she manage the energy she sees / takes in.

      She seems to have accepted the default challenge of her situation to take on this crap and fight for herself. There’s health in that. She is, and clearly was before this case, an intelligent, kind and gentlewoman. So what she had some quirks, most of the truly interesting and fun people do!

      I can’t imagine a person in the world who could possibly be having more people giving her advise and telling her what to do, than Amanda, we have to, and get to, accept that she is intelligent, and considerate and will make her own decisions.

      And by her previous blog posts she appreciates our support…so she can take any advice we give her, if she wants, and she can leave the rest. –The healthiest choice.

      I think it is only human nature for any of us to project ourselves into her position, and wonder what it would be like if we, a friend, or a family member were in her situation, if we or they had gone through what she went through — and most of us are horrified and empathetic.

      Reading Amanda’s book I was stunned by the story behind the headlines, and impressed by what a class act she actually is. Many of us would be hard pressed to handle things as well as she has after the total insane character assassination she received by Mignini and his clown posse.

    • BigDinBoise says:

      Gregory – please speak for yourself. I can’t say I like how much control the guilters have over Amanda’s Blog either, but this is her space and she gets to decide how the comments on her blog posts are filtered.
      I think I can understand why the comments are moderated the way they are here. While I have no way of knowing how many guilter/hater comments get denied, if any, I am a aware that a few of my comments are not posted and can accept the moderators standards.
      I don’t believe anything is accomplished with regard to changing people’s opinions by just allowing the choir to sing their praises, and that seems to be the thinking in allowing these guilter’s comments, seemingly unfiltered. Amanda’a interest lies in spreading the truth and debunking the myths and misinformation about her and the case.

      • Andrea Jonasson says:

        I agree. And it is the reality of Amanda’s life now. Go on a photo safari and smell the flowers, then get called a psychopath by anonymous strangers.

        Hopefully posting some of the meanness here is a bit like sharing a burden.

    • William Benjamin says:

      I would rather see less on Amanda’s plate than more. The so called guilter’s are not of one brain. Some have clearly been taken by the enormous propaganda as would be expected of humans.

      If you can find a way to treat people who disagree with you in the same fashion as you would wish to be treated, even though no further good may come, no further evil will be done.

      That being said they piss me off too. I think a closed forum might be a good idea. Real verified names. Publically viewable. Money from participants to finance it and any extra goes to the campaigns. Within the circle of this thing that landed on Amanda I think Bruce Fisher has the most experience as to the in’s and outs. I would personally pay $$$.$$ to join. I need to think it out some more though.

      Less on Amanda! More on us.

    • Stephane G says:

      My 2 cents…

      We are here on Amanda’s blog and website and she does what she wants with it. Now, considering this blog itself and the amount of information collected and being now translated in the documentation submenus, the purpose of the site – besides dealing with injustice in general – is to offer visitors information and a possibility to ask their questions and form their enlightened opinion on her case… and from this, of course, decide Amanda is innocent.

      You will notice that, when Amanda writes, she usually answers questions or remarks from “guilters” rather than dispensing brownie points. This underlines the fact that this website is here to defend her position and argue for her innocence. Of course it could have been a place where only friendly supporters meet, share their inner convictions, gather for a supporting moment, make it a cosy place, and in the end, some kind of private club where only drinks and cigars would be missing. This is an overstatement of course, but you get the point : this place was made for debate, and for persuading visitors who are looking for clues and explanations, that Amanda (and Raffaele !) are innocent. So we have to admit it cannot be a fan-club at the same time.

      As Elias said, and from what I can read on common news magazines fora, I am pretty sure dozens of hateful comments do not reach our eyes. Yesterday we could catch a glimpse of a heavy troll-like message before it was moderated and there was nothing in it to rejoice at. So there is a choice to make. Considering the goals of the blog, and as long as they are not purely and simply insulting, Amanda must allow comments and questions from “guilters” even when they are full of innuendos. And erase the merely aggressive ones. This is what she does, obviously.

      Is it a good idea ? I think it is. Is it a successful idea ?… Well…

      I have been reading this blog for some time… A month and a half, I think… I expected rather “naïve” questions, from people trying to form their opinion on the case. People who might think Amanda and Raffaele were guilty but who would come with an opened mind for a different view. Now I start to realize that most people (generally) have a rather vague knowledge of the story, but these do not look for more information. They keep their preconceived opinion for themselves or express it on general fora, but do not seem to consider coming here and ask for precisions.

      Participants from the “guilters” side seem to be rather well documented and to have a much more than average knowledge of the case. More than what they show, in my opinion. I doubt they are looking here for more information. Often using innuendos they are merely suggesting (or frankly claiming) that Amanda is guilty, and that’s it. Whatever you may answer, they will be back in what turns to be a kind of bad and sad game. Besides, I have been reading almost everything I could find for months and have the feeling everything that could be said or written has been said or written. I am now expecting Nencini’s report (well… its English translation, anyway) like everybody else.

      I know I am going to be quite pessimistic here. I haven’t been around for a long time but I do not remember seeing here anybody convinced of Amanda and Raffaele’s guilt changing his opinion and beginning to support them. Sometimes, when I read the same attacks hidden behind the same questions, I can’t help thinking all this is going nowhere. I keep on reading and writing for the sake of defending the rights and the honor of two people I do not know and will never meet, because, for reasons I still do not fully understand, I felt truly heartbroken by the injustice done to them. But I feel a little disheartened sometimes. OK. Maybe today is only a bad Wednesday…

      I know this sounds self-contradictory. I still believe managing this blog the way it has been managed is the thing to do, but here I feel a little like Sisyphus, sometimes – compelled to roll that boulder uphill forever and purposeless. I can’t imagine what it must be for Amanda and Raffaele ! I don’t speak Italian and cannot even help with the translation job. So being friendly and as supportive as I can be is in the end the only useful thing I feel able to do. Amanda said it helped. That is probably how I would feel in her position. Maybe Gregory is right in the end… (?)

      Have a nice day everyone.

      • Giselle says:

        Stephane

        The unfortunate facts point A) to Amanda’s guilt or B) lies, corruption, mistakes and total incompetence of Italian police, detectives, forensic teams, judges, jurors, and so on and so forth.

        It is just not possible in my mind to hold that so many respectable people have lied and that the one person speaking the truth is Amanda. Especially in light of the contradictions that remain in her story, her lack of memory and her false accusation of Patrick Lumumba – it is very hard to trust her integrity over that of the judges, jurors, police, forensic experts, witnesses, and detectives. What could possibly be their motive? There is no one important involved and no important issue for such a humongous cover up that we are told to believe. To say that the facts as they have been presented do not show her guilt would be to say that no one who has looked at the case has had any intelligence, it would be arrogant, so carefully combed through by several judges and jurors. So to say she is innocent would be to claim incompetence and corruption on a very large scale.

        Amanda and Raffaele have had some of the best legal representation money can buy. I think that alone shows that the fact they have been found guilty is the correct judgement.

        If the case reaches the extradition level in the States (if the Supreme Court agrees with the verdict) the trial documents will all be translated and it will be argued by an American lawyer representing Italy why she should be extradited. I hope the translation and the media coverage on home ground will finally highlight why Amanda has been found guilty of murder.

        • jamesrae says:

          I’d call you out on the ” respectable people ” part.
          Also the integrity of witnesses and detectives. Their is, in my opinion, no case I have familiarity with over my lifetime that has the preposterous
          scenarios and timelines and absurdities and strangeness of the first trial that got them convicted. A real mess is how it reads.

        • Doug Moodie says:

          Giselle,

          Did you actually read what Stephane wrote? Especially – Participants from the “guilters” side seem to be rather well documented and to have a much more than average knowledge of the case. Often using innuendos they are merely suggesting (or frankly claiming) that Amanda is guilty, and that’s it. Whatever you may answer, they will be back in what turns to be a kind of bad and sad game.

          Now, you Giselle are the perfect example, because although it’s been awhile, you have been on this board before with strong expressions of dislike for Amanda Knox. Now you are back again, and nothing has changed.

          The plain fact is, Giselle, if Knox were guilty, you would be able to tell me why, and make it stick. But you can’t can you? You, despite all your knowledge and all your resources cannot argue successfully to a reasonable and object audience that Knox is guilty.

          Your only hope is to use a trick. You create a Hobson’s choice that allows you to convict without having to argue even on of the many very controversial facts of the case. You tell me, either you accept my (Giselle’s) proffered theory of how she could be innocent, which, on the face at least seems unlikely, or you conclude with me in my belief in guilt.

          No one who believes in innocence is arguing that there is a conspircy, at least not as I believe you are attempting to insinuate. Still, the arguments for innocence are very strong and convincing. Your proffered choices simply are not correct. You have created a straw man in a conspiracy in order to assert Knox’s guilt.

          However, the underlying questions of honesty, integrity, and bias are important factors in the discussion of the case.

          Is it likely that a knife really was the murder weapon that does
          -not fit the wound
          -chosen at random
          -at a location not the murder scene,
          -a knife used for cooking,
          for which the DNA tests
          -did not provide negative controls
          -did not report essential corroborating data
          -tested a sample that was so low that the quantifying machine could not dectect any quantity of material
          – and there is even more about this one piece of evidence, but you get the idea.

          In fact you know all about it already. You know how controversial all of the evidence is, but instead of discussing it, you try to avoid it. I think to avoid having to admit the existence of reasonable doubt.

          Why is that do you think? Why are you so set against accepting the obvious controveries and difficuties associated with the case, and why can’t you either agree that there is reasonable doubt that Knox + Sollecito are guilty, or at least try to convince people using your knowledge that they are guilty.

        • Antony says:

          Giselle: It is just not possible in my mind to hold that so many respectable people have lied and that the one person speaking the truth is Amanda.

          This is known as “argument from incredulity”. It’s a common line from people who don’t want to look at the facts for themselves.

          Especially in light of the contradictions that remain in her story, her lack of memory

          “Her story”? It looks to me as though you are going by what others have said about her, and not what she has to say for herself. Why don’t you talk about all the contradictions in the police and prosecution story? What about all the evidence that has gone missing or destroyed in police hands: interrogation tapes, computer hard drives, rusted bra clasp – the list goes on and on.

          and her false accusation of Patrick Lumumba

          Coerced by police. That’s obvious to anyone who has any idea of what goes on in the circumstances that the statement was made. What sense would it make for someone guilty of murder, who knew what happened, to name someone who wasn’t there?

          – it is very hard to trust her integrity over that of the judges, jurors, police, forensic experts, witnesses, and detectives. What could possibly be their motive? There is no one important involved and no important issue for such a humongous cover up that we are told to believe.

          … except that the police bungled the initial investigation and needed to blame it on someone else, and a 20-year-old visiting student who couldn’t speak the language, thousands of miles from home was the easiest target.

          To say that the facts as they have been presented do not show her guilt would be to say that no one who has looked at the case has had any intelligence, it would be arrogant, so carefully combed through by several judges and jurors.

          Again, the statement of someone who hasn’t looked at the facts for themselves, and goes by their own perceptions of those making the claim.

          So to say she is innocent would be to claim incompetence and corruption on a very large scale.

          The trouble is, there is actually massive evidence of incompetence and corruption, and it doesn’t take long to recognise it. It’s just a matter of looking at the facts (not slanted reporting based on official leaks) of the investigation with an open mind.

          Amanda and Raffaele have had some of the best legal representation money can buy. I think that alone shows that the fact they have been found guilty is the correct judgement.

          What it shows is the way the system is weighted in Italy. Again, it only takes a little time, reading the official rationale for judgements made, to see how the case has been fixed. This will ultimately all come out at the European Court of Human Rights.

        • Mandos says:

          Giselle, every country has it’s share of wrongful convictions:

          Pietro Valpreda
          Enzo Tortora
          Daniele Barillà
          Edmond Arapi
          Fabio Carlino
          Adolph Beck
          John Alexander Dickman
          William Herbert Wallace
          Walter Graham Rowland
          Timothy Evans
          John Reginald Halliday Christie
          Mahmood Mattan
          Derek Bentley
          George Thatcher
          Andrew Evans
          Stephen Downing
          The Birmingham Six
          The Guildford Four
          The Maguire Seven
          Stefan Kiszko
          John Joseph Boyle
          Paul Blackburn
          The Bridgewater Four
          Peter Fell
          Sean Hodgson
          Winston Silcott
          The Cardiff Newsagent Three
          Michelle and Lisa Taylor
          The Cardiff Three

          All these people (the list goes on and on though) were thought guilty by the police and found guilty by multiple courts, all filled with respectable judges and (sometimes) juries. The common denominator: They were all actually innocent. Corruption? Well Giselle, I’m a law clerk specialized in criminal law in the Netherlands at one of the courts of appeal in the Netherlands (the court of appeal of Arnhem, to be precise) and have seen hundreds of cases since I started working there in 2009. One thing I learned? Never blame on corruption what can be adequately explained by incompetence, improper training and confirmation bias. In this case, one doesn’t even have to guess at the incompetence of the Perugian police, since they showed it themselves by filming their own forensic investigation. Handling evidence with dirty gloves, walking all over the cottage without changing their shoecovers, covering wide area’s with the same DNA collection swabs… As a legal professional I could only shake my head in wonder at the ineptness of it all.

          The interrogation of Amanda is a another prime example: it’s basically a shining beacon of ‘how to not conduct an interrogation’. Upon reading the actual transcript it became readily apparent the police was feeding her information and pushing her in certain directions (‘We know Lumumba was there, you must have suppressed the memory!’) until she gave the ‘right ‘answer. One of the primary tenets in police interrogations: Keep your questions open, don’t assume anything, don’t say the suspect is wrong if you don’t have hard proof on the contrary (and certainly NEVER lie to him, like for example: “Bob already confessed and said you were involved.”when Bob has said no such thing) or is misremembering things. What the Perugian police did wrong was thinking they had solved the case: Lumumba had murdered Meredith and Amanda was somehow involved (the phone message from Amanda to Patrick and the curly black hair found at the scene). The problem: they were wrong, but because they went into the interrogation with this assumption they pushed the flow of conversation in that direction and kept pressuring Amanda until she gave them the ‘right’ answer. I actually find Amanda’s ‘confession’ to be indicative of innocence, since it’s so manifestly wrong in many aspects of the crime except for the fact that Meredith died.

          “Amanda and Raffaele have had some of the best legal representation money can buy. I think that alone shows that the fact they have been found guilty is the correct judgement. ”

          Wait, what? “They had really good lawyers, so they must be guilty.” Apart from the fact that this doesn’t make sense, I’ll just refer to the list posted above. Many of those people had fine lawyers as well. Guess what? It didn’t help them much.

          • Nick says:

            I think you should google ‘John Reginald Halliday Christie’ and do some better research before embarrassing yourself again…

        • Stephane G says:

          Hi Giselle. And thank you for your answer. I am going to try to be as clear as I can about your position.

          I naturally tend to share your point of view when I am confronted with such a situation. Generally, I feel suspicious about conspiracy theories involving too many people to be plausible and increasing the complexity of a case to the point the whole thing becomes much more unbelievable than the “official theory” itself. I will come back to this later.

          Giselle, I think you may admit that, in spite of all the precautions taken and the involvement of serious and duteous professionals, such things as miscarriages of justice happen from time to time. Yes, even in Italy. Justice, as you know, is not an exact science and at one point implies subjectivity as a result of principles such as “guilt beyond a reasonable doubt” or “inner conviction”.

          You don’t have to be a natural born liar or an obscure conspirator to come to a wrongful conclusion or decision. It is enough that, at one stage, the information and data – or logic – you are relying on may be mistaken. Or that an important element may miss. One snag in a process can result in a totally biased and/or wrong result. Personally, I do not believe all the people (and that includes the jury) who convinced Amanda and Raffaele were liars or idiots.

          But you should also realize, Giselle, that prosecutors, police, judges… are human beings and may react therefore with human imperfections. You may be wrong at one point in your choices and decisions. Anyone can be. Now, some will stop immediately and admit they were mistaken and try to correct their wrong doings. But even then, they will be others to call them liars or stupid, which is a rather unpleasant situation. This is why a lot will in fact fight to prove they were right from the beginning and will sidestep the difficulty by getting deeper into the lie they locked themselves in. And the deeper they will go, the heavier the consequences will be and the harder it will be for them to acknowledge their wrongful attitude. Some may eventually believe in their own lies (Amanda herself has been accused of such a reaction).

          Finally, some are just selfish careerists caring only for their reputation at the risk of scarifying innocents. Do you think this happens only in films, Giselle ?

          Well, let me tell you about a man who has been sitting under examination and questioned for 10 hours in an investigating judge office. Let’s say he is accused of something that obviously was a kind of accident. At one key moment, he did not reacted the way he was expected to react (reminds you of someone ?). There is no murderer because there simply was no crime. At one moment the clerk of the court leaves the room. And the judge looks at the man straight in the eyes and, although the lawyer is there, tells him : “in my position don’t expect me to admit there is no murder. I am here to find a murderer and you Sir, are a perfectly well suited one”. Do you think this does not happen ? Well, I have seen this with my own eyes and heard it with my own ears, Giselle. And this moment, your understanding of Justice totally shivers. THIS is also Justice. But THIS is not FAIR. And this HAPPENS.

          That’s only an example. The case I have been telling you about lasted about ten years and I’ve seen things you, Giselle, would not believe. I would not have believed them myself, before I faced its hysteric reality.

          In spite of all this, I still tend to react the way you do when I hear of a case or any kind of “mystery”. I almost always start by assuming judges or police honestly did their job, and do not always look further myself (but then I refuse to speak aloud about it). A few weeks ago, somebody, who I know often writes in this blog – I’m sure he will recognize himself – wrote a very interesting article about Amanda’s case, in which he was considering the possibility of her guilt and then developed it until he could show how absurd the accusation was because of all the unbelievable details it implied. I really liked this article because it is the way I proceed when seriously considering a case or a doubtful event.

          Anyway, this is how I looked on Amanda and Raffaele’s case. After a quick summary of the situation and the debates, I refused to read books at first (that only came after), and started with all the testimonials, and then the court reports. And I tried to force them into a murderer role. Then I considered their innocence.

          There is no direct proof of anything in this case, as you know. This is why they have been convinced on a “congruence of circumstantial evidences” base. All these evidences have been widely discussed. I will not enter a debate about the RFU level of DNA on exhibit 36b or these kinds of things. A lot of ink and gigabytes have already flowed about these, and I will assume you are aware of the different theories. At this stage, I tried to hypothesize their guilt, their innocence, their presence in the house without direct participation… and to build different scenarios to see how they developed. Of course, nothing is crystal clear from the very beginning, here, otherwise we would not be debating. So whatever scenario you choose, you have to twist the facts a little or… a lot !

          So, to make it short, I tend to consider that the simplest solution is the most plausible one, even if it implies some extra hypothesis as long as they sound plausible themselves. The necessary hypothesis leading to their guilt just did not FIT or were much too far-fetched.

          Of course, Giselle, all I am giving you here is a quick summary. I invite you to collect all the collectible facts and think things over by yourself. Consider the prosecutors or the police could have some interest in protecting their reputation, covering their mistakes, solving the case in a very short time at any price, and so on… Also consider that experts and judges like Conti, Vecchiotti (who were not appointed by the defense but by the court itself), or Hellman, and the jury on appeal, had basically no more reasons to lie than any others. And yet they concluded in Amanda and Raffaele’s innocence.

          At last consider the meanings, the whys and wherefores of the notion of “guilt beyond a reasonable doubt” which is supposed to rule over court decision in Italy.

          Have a nice day, Giselle.

          Stephane.

        • Wayne says:

          Your trust in authority is somewhat disturbing and is why Amanda has so many people around the world totally against her when she had done nothing wrong. Authorities have hoodwinked entire populations with lies, deceit and manipulation. The Nazis in Germany, the Communists in the USSR, the Fascists in Italy. The list goes on and on.

          • Elias says:

            Power corrupts, absolutely power corrupts absolutely.

            Mignini=power. Code of conga line, means his minions followed his mistakes past fault to criminal misconduct.

        • Stephane G says:

          Food for thought…

          “Dietrologia is the idea that the obvious thing cannot be the truth. There is always something hidden behind, dietro. It isn’t quite what you Americans call conspiracy theory. Conspiracy theory implies theory, something uncertain, a possibility. The dietrologist deals only in fact. This is how it really is. Aside from football, dietrologia is the national sport in Italy. Everyone is an expert at what’s really going on, even… how do you Americans say it?… even if they don’t know jack shit.”
          “Why?” I asked.
          “Because it gives them a feeling of importance! This importance may only be confined to a small circle of idiotic friends, but at least they are in the know. Potere, power, is that I know what you do not know. Dietrologia is tied to the Italian mentality of power. You must appear to be in the know about all things.”

          (…) “At all costs, they have to find something behind the apparent reality. There cannot not be something. Why? Because it is not possible that the thing you see is the truth. Nothing is simple, nothing is at it seems. Does it look like a suicide? Yes? Well then it must be murder. Somebody went out for coffee? Aha! He went out for coffee… But what was he really doing?” He laughed. “In Italy,” he continued, “there is a permanent climate of witch-hunting.(…)”

          “And at all costs they have to find something. Once they’ve started, to save face they have to go on. For the sake of this idea, they will do anything. They cannot give it up. You anglosassoni do not understand the Mediterranean concept of face.”

          “In Italy, the hatred of your enemy is such that he has to be built up, made into the ultimate adversary, for all evil. (…) This is what they will prove, no matter what. Woe to the person”—he eyed me significantly—“who disputes their theory because that makes him an accomplice. The more vehemently he denies being involved, the stronger is the proof.”

          (D. Preston / M. Spezzi. The Monster of Florence)

      • William Benjamin says:

        Hey Sisyphus. I get it. I’m on one of those boulders too. There will be a start to an end to this when Italy makes an extradition request then Italy’s game will be played on our court. I think everybody who cares about this needs to heed Alan Dershowitz’s prophesy and prepare to fight it with cash and embittered diligence. This boulder is now being pushed to prepare for the fight that must be won for the sanctity of our American culture. As far as the jurisprudence of Italy goes… the fix is in.

        • Stephane G says:

          The last throw of the dice… Yes… But what about Raffaele, then ?

          • Elias says:

            Never Forget Rafaelle!

          • William Benjamin says:

            It is Amanda they need to justify everything. Without Amanda, Raffaele serves no political value. A proactive approach in Amanda’s favor does not affect negatively affect Raffaele’s status whatsoever. Put differently, diminishing Amanda’s ability to defend herself does not improve the status of Raffaele. Amanda and Raffaele are now two separate subjects that would be best left unintegrated for the sake of both of them.

          • quixotic1 says:

            Stephane G, hindsight demonstatrates that it is the ONLY throw of the dice. Everything prior to the upcoming American resolution was written in water.

          • Stephane G says:

            A decision from an american court to reject Amanda’s extradition would be a victory but it would not clear her name. And what I mean here is that the case has to be won on the next appeal to the Supreme Court before considering this last stage, also because there will be no “upcoming American resolution” for Raffaele afterwards.

          • William Benjamin says:

            The initial decision will be entirely on the President via the Secretary of State whether to accept the request. If the request is accepted and in order then it is not a forgone conclusion that the US Supreme Court will hear any elements of this case. If they do it will be on the legality of the treaty itself or it’s application that is in conflict with the US constitution. There lies the slippery slope.
            Raffaele is absolutely in the best position to accurately assess his own Italian society. If he ever has the motivation I think we can find room for him here given that his resume and references are unquestionably superior when compared with the average undocumented aliens the walk across our borders everyday. All he needs to do is ask. But instead he has chosen to be a patriot and I must respect that even though I have trepidation with his decision.

  35. Max Green says:

    I’m just wondering why.. did the prosecution presume guilt in the first place.. thereby infecting so many gullible people.. who apparently have to suffer from this virus so many years.. without even realizing it.

    Interesting but sorry to bring that up again. Hope to see some more Seattle snapshots.
    Greets from the other side of the world! :-)

    • Elias says:

      I think Mignini was focused on making it a few things…a Satanic group sex scene gone wrong ala the Monster of Florence case.

      Mignini is crazy. Scary crazy. His weapon of choice is his power to imprison.

      • Nasim says:

        Elias, you’re new to this case so maybe it’s not to late for you. Mignini hardly ever made a major decision on his own. The things he’s been most pilloried for – he did those things on the advice of someone else. I doubt even Amanda would put him on her list of “proud and hateful authorities.”

        • Angela Smitherman says:

          It is, however, too late for ErgonE, er, Nasim. Too late, that is, to be a useful member of society. Oh, the pity.

          Elias, I agree with you that Mignini is, on some levels anyway, crazy. But not so crazy that he didn’t admit to doing, on his own with no advice, that which he’s been most “pilloried” for…not allowing the medical examiner to get the proper temperature reading on Meredith’s body. Gee, I wonder why he did that?

        • Elias says:

          Newness doesn’t hold much water after a few months, 6 books, a handful of websites, dozens of youtube videos, thousands of web forum posts.

          After awhile it becomes repetitive ad nausea.

          It is clear to me that there is zero evidence. ZERO reliable forensic evidence, no motive, no even stretched barely maybe possible tangential motive.

          The fact that Mignini was influenced or took the advice of Postal Police Clowns stating it was a staged break in passing that to Idiot Perugian police who just swallowed hook like and sinker, with no real investigation of Filomena’s room…

          I mean, geez, man photos of the outside wall and windows show a clear mud/first foothold print on the bottom window. Why were none of those windows or security bars tested against the mud/dirt on the floor of Filomena’s room???

          Guilters want to cast aspersions and suspicions of Amanda’s supposed this and supposed that — while we have actual police crime scene photos and videos EVIDENCING thing like the above, or glass strewn far into Filomena’s room, stuck in far walls and on top of clothes etc. etc. etc.

          But haters-guilters just don’t want to even address those things. They’d rather lie about it.

          I’m 57 years old, with bad knees from a car accident, and I’ll bet you $1m I could still get up that bottom window, and into that top window.

          Staged break in my ass.

          • Nasim says:

            It’s not even possible to throw the 10lb rock from the outside and have it land on the Isley bag. Then you have the arrangement of the glass on the sill which indicates the outer shutter was closed when the rock was thown. Whatever dirt you may think you see in the photos cannot overcome those two facts.

          • Antony says:

            Nasim: “It’s not even possible to throw the 10lb rock from the outside and have it land on the Isley bag.

            That’s a complete delusion. The rock was almost certainly thrown from the car park, which was at the same level as the window – then the perpetrator walked round to the space under the window to make the climb.

            “Then you have the arrangement of the glass on the sill which indicates the outer shutter was closed when the rock was thown.

            It doesn’t indicate this. The pieces of glass were placed there by the perpetrator after pulling them out to enlarge the hole, and to avoid making more noise by dropping them on the ground.

            “Whatever dirt you may think you see in the photos cannot overcome those two facts.”

            They are not facts. Those trying to sustain the prosecution will make up whatever “facts” suit their claims. All the evidence at the crime scene indicates a genuine break-in.

    • Sarah H says:

      The common rule of thumb is that a murderer is usually close to the victim. In this case, the other roommates were out of town. That left only Amanda as a possibility, so all the attention immediately became focused on her. There was the problem of the broken window, but they “solved” it by deciding the break-in was staged. Therefore, the most obvious candidate, the roommate who was in town, was guilty.

      • Elias says:

        It is very possible that Rudy heard from one of his downstairs basketball buddies that they were going to be out of town, and he just assumed the upstairs women would be too. There’s nothing to show that Guede was a deep thinker and factored in that two foreign students might be unaware of the ipso facto 4 day weekend and that he was “in danger” of being walked in on.

        What horrifies me most is the very likelyhood that Meredith was probably still alive when Rudy Hermann Guede began sexually assaulting and raping her. Add on to that how little the guilters consider that — let alone those officers of the court in Italy saying “poor Rudy.”

        GMAFB.

  36. Nasim says:

    Celeste makes a good point about the passive-aggressiveness. One of the reasons I read this blog is to understand what made Amanda kill. At one point she said (I wish I could find the quote) something to the effect that neither she nor Meredith were the type to argue openly. When two passive-aggressive people clash it sometimes becomes a battle to see who will lose their cool first. This of course is not the whole story. The world is full of passive-aggressive people and 99% of them do not kill. I think what Amanda has is a turbocharged version of passive-aggression, repressed hostility. Such people rarely display anger. They display emotional and cognitive rigidity. They are self-righteous and judgmental of others. Anger builds up like a pressure-cooker and after the violence people say things like, “she didn’t have a mean bone in her body.” This is still not the full answer. People can’t be pigeon-holed so easily. Amanda also has certain obsessive, narcissistic and perhaps even psychotic traits. Then there is the group dynamic, which in this case may be even more important than the individual psychopathology. At this point all I can say is that drugs or alcohol were probably involved and the attack was probably planned.

    • Amanda says:

      Nasim,

      You are making the same mistake as the prosecution: you are making assumptions based on presumption of guilt. You claim that I’m a pressure-cooker of passive-aggression, obsession, narcissism, and psychopathy without any objective, determinate reason. I have no history of violence, criminal activity, behavioral or social problems – this includes before I was arrested, while I was imprisoned, and since I’ve been returned to freedom. Upon my arrest I was tested for drugs in my system and resulted negative. Genetic traces at the crime scene suggest that Rudy Guede was the sole perpetrator of the assault.

      I only ask that those who wish to judge me concede presumption of innocence until proven otherwise and don’t make assumptions about what kind of person I am out of thin air.
      a

      • BigDinBoise says:

        A perfectly reasonable request Amanda. One which anyone in your situation would ask for themselves.
        Unfortunately, I don’t believe Nasim has the capacity to withhold judgement about your character, or anyone that is similarly accused of a crime.
        The contradictory nature of his last sentence, in which he states that he believes the attack was planned, and yet also that drugs and alcohol were used, which would seem to indicate he also believes it was spontaneous, reveals that he is willing to believe anything as long as it points to guilt. He really doesn’t know anything but is willing to fill in the gaps with anything that explains the inexplicable; that you and Raffaele, with no history of violence or malice towards Meredith, could have committed this crime.
        I’m truly sorry you have to go through this Amanda. You must be frustrated beyond belief and it amazes me that you have any faith in humanity left.

        I first started to learn the details of your case a few months before your acquittal in 2011. I watched your heartfelt plea, to the Hellman court on television, and although I already believed you were innocent from what I had learned at that point, the gracious way in which you plead your and Raffaele’s innocence moved me. It was a joy to hear of your acquittal and release and to know that you were returning home with your loving family to Seattle. An injustice was corrected and the world seemed a little brighter place for it.
        Unfortunately, after reading the ridiculous reasoning behind the reversal of the acquittal, the latest verdict did not surprise me. Keep fighting as you have been. I think you have found you are stronger than you ever believed. Know that you have a lot of support from people like me that wholly believe in your innocence and are outraged by the injustice that you and Raffaele are being put through, again. I can only hope that the highly sensationalized nature of your case will bring some good by spotlighting similar wrongful prosecution’s that occur every day all around the world.

      • Mark Saha says:

        Celeste’s post is a deliberate irony – a letter written in the passive-aggressive style that accuses Amanda of passive-aggressive behavior.

        Passive-aggressive typically refers to a statement that is ostensibly neutral or even complimentary toward its subject but contains a veiled criticism or sarcasm. An example is Celeste’s compliment of Amanda’s photography: “I like the adding machine photo. There are a lot of interesting photos like this if you google optical illusion photography.”

        Amanda is not remotely passive-aggressive and displays remarkable restraint when responding to hostile critics. “I’m sorry you feel that way” is the equivalent of “let us agree to disagree”; there is no veiled sarcasm.

        Celeste is not passive-aggressive either, though she has written a letter in the passive-aggressive style. I would describe her as vindictive.

      • Nasim says:

        Yeah, yeah, sure. But let’s just stipulate for a minute that the evidence proves you are guilty and take it from there. I am trying to understand why you didn’t have a history of violence or serious criminal activity and the passive-aggressive theory makes sense. I wouldn’t go so far as to say you were without behavioral or social problems. Plenty of people have said otherwise. Drug tests aren’t reliable four or five days out. I find it suspicious that you and Raffaele were talking about how drugs are bad around the time of the murder. It’s also been alleged that Rudy procured drugs for friends. Finally, I think it’s odd that you wish to be presumed innocent until proven otherwise when you have said you will not respect the decision of the Italian courts. Are you announcing that you will now accept the will of the Court of Cassation?

        • Rob H says:

          We want evidence not innuendo – “plenty of people have said otherwise” etc. Who? Quennell? Ganong? yummi? Well, whoop-de-doo!

          No, we are not going to “stipulate” that the evidence proves Ms Knox guilty – it does the complete opposite.

          You have produced no evidence whatsoever that proves any of the nonsensical far fetched clams you have been making here for months and doubtless elsewhere for years.

          To be asked for evidence for the claims you make and to produce nothing – have you any conception of how utterly fraudulent this causes you to appear?

          “I am trying to understand why you didn’t have a history of violence or serious criminal activity…”, you say. Well, I can help you there – Ms Knox is neither a criminal nor is she violent! There is no evidence for any other conclusion. But, you cannot see the wood for the trees. So obsessed with your own certainty of her guilt for reasons only you or your psychiatrist will know, all evidence contrary to your position is dismissed.

          Yeah yeah sure, “nasim”.

          As for Court of Cassation – would you accept its will if it ultimately sided with the evidence and pronounced Ms Knox not guilty?

        • Andrea Jonasson says:

          Ummm… Nasim? Taking a hypothesis as the first principle in your speculations will lead you to incorrect conclusions. Your reasoning is flawed.

          Let’s not stipulate that the evidence shows that Amanda is guilty. Instead, as the law in civilized countries (including Italy) requires, let’s begin with the presumption that Amanda and Raffaele are innocent. Then, if you can, produce reliable evidence that proves beyond a reasonable that Amanda and Raffaele were involved in Meredith’s murder. Only you can’t do that, because there isn’t any reliable evidence against them.

          The Hellmann-Zanetti court followed this legally and scientifically sound process and reached the conclusion that Amanda and Raffaele did not participate in Meredith’s murder.

          One of the characteristics of scientific reasoning is changing your anchoring idea when it is not supported by objective evidence.

          • Anna (a.k.a. Niteangel on injusticeanywhere) says:

            I agree, Hellman is the only one that actually made sense, and was not riddled with assumptions. I still don’t think Amanda should have been accused of calunnia tho, but at least he generally did a good job.

          • Andrea Jonasson says:

            @Anna – I have often wondered if Hellmann took into account that Amanda would not need to serve more time if he found her guilty of the calunnia and threw it in there in the vain hope that the Supreme Court would find it in themselves to finalize the verdict and leave Amanda and Raffaele in peace. Complete speculation, of course.

        • BigDinBoise says:

          “I wouldn’t go so far as to say you were without behavioral or social problems. Plenty of people have said otherwise.”

          Sources Nasim… who has said this?

          You think it’s odd that Amanda wishes to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. Somehow this is not surprising coming from you.
          Amanda is just asking you to start with the presumption of innocence before looking at the evidence, which is the opposite of what the prosecution has done in her case.
          Try to imagine that you were falsely accused of a crime… now would you ever respect the court that said you were guilty?

        • Sarah H says:

          Nasim, you want Amanda to do exactly what Mignini and the police did. First, stipulate that she is guilty. Then try to force the evidence to fit your stipulation.

          Why should she respect the decision of a system that found her guilty before they even had the lab results back from the murder room? Why should she respect the decision of a system that found her guilty when she knows she is innocent?

      • Mark (AKA Supernaut) says:

        Nasim isn’t, unfortunately, “making a mistake”.

        He seems to know exactly what he’s doing and what he wants (whatever that might be).

      • Joel says:

        Hey Amanda: you point out what should be the thinking of the rational. The internet is the realm of the anonymous, who more often than not are irrational and malevolent. They’re the haters. They’re the ones who purposely ignore facts in favor of their own crackpot theories that, like Nasim, they passionately support with their ostensible acumen and advanced powers of dissection. Of course they don’t know you. And they don’t care to know that you have always been a sweet and good person. All your friends and family support this. These are facts. Problem is the Italian justice system is of on par with these crackpots – disregarding facts in favor of bizarre hypothesis – which has encouraged an entire lack of reason in regards to your case and your life. The chance of a young, educated woman with no record of violence killing anyone is beyond rare. You were in Italy one month, loving the adventure, falling for a nice Italian guy, feeling only friendship for Meredith. Who kills in this scenario? It makes absolutely no sense. Just as it made absolutely no sense that at a party I was hosting, this very bright English guy I’ve known and liked for years, became belligerent at the mention of your case, zealous in his conviction you are guilty and that America is going to protect a murderer. I tried to argue facts without success. Seriously, we haven’t spoken since. Which is why you should disregard the irrational and be gearing up to make a very strong and direct case for yourself. You gotta rally the troops with plain honest talk. I think you’ve started to do that. I wrote to you when you were in prison because I was convinced you were innocent. But I’m a fellow writer who has time to read copious internet docs like court transcripts. You need to reach those who may only hear your words.

      • Somebody says:

        Amanda, Amanda, Amanda.
        Everybody has given you the benefit of a doubt. Many don’t know you personlly, but bases their opinion on an opinion of LOTS of people who have.
        When do you start speaking the truth? You DID have all of those things you said you didn’t have:
        -you had history of violence. You were fined by police in Seattle for a small riot in your party. You had fantacies of rape that you wrote down.
        -you had criminal activity: drug use isn’t legal in Italy. I’m not going to go to the gossip about working without work permit, because I don’t know the facts about it.
        -You did have SEVERE behavioral and social problems. It itself doesn’t mean yet that you are to blame, since many of us had those, when young. But let’s start being honest here. Some people you knew have said you did have those. You can’t be so blind that you haven’t read about those, so I don’t go there.
        You would do yourself enormous favor to finally start looking truthfully at things and stop hiding from yourself. It’s over for you, game is over, so just start growing, and being honest, you would do better.

        • Mandos says:

          Only in the fevered minds of the guilters could a minor noise citation for a loud party turn into a riot. A history of violence and serious behavorial problems… Seriously, how DO you people come up with such drivel? Even the Massei report noted that both Amanda and Raffaele had NO history of violence, behavorial problems or previous run-ins with the law and were perfect honor students. Massei even notes it as points in their favor.

          As for the pot smoking: with this kind of reasoning, Meredith was even a bigger criminal, since she smoked pot AND watered the cannabis plants of her boyfriend. In the Netherlands that qualifies as aiding and abetting the cultivation of a list I drug.

          Of course, the fact that Amanda (or Meredith for that matter) smoked pot is in any way indicative of a criminal mind except in certain people’s fevered minds. After all, all the other housemates smoked pot as well, as does half the student population of Perugia.

        • HH says:

          Somebody:

          1) Amanda got a ticket for a noise complaint.
          2) Amanda wrote a FICTIONAL story involving a rape for her creative writing class. If writing a fictional story about something indicates that she is a murderer, I suppose you think Stephen King is a serial killer then?
          3) Everyone involved in this case had “criminal activity” then, including Meredith.
          4) What severe behavioral problems? Amanda had a history of behaving responsibly. She was an excellent student and she worked three jobs to save up the money to go to Italy.

          Just because Meredith’s snotty British friends and the police thought she was weird and obnoxious does not mean that she had severe behavioral problems.

          If you want to evidence of severe behavioral problems, do some research on Rudy Guede.

          • Elias says:

            If memory serves it was the teachers assignment to write something about rape.

        • the real says:

          I agree I cant believe this girl has the cheek to add a page called miscarriage of justice that has links to explain why she told so many lies to cover up her guilt. Who does that??? Someone who is using studies to prove that what she did happens all the time. What a joke!

    • Andrea Jonasson says:

      “Those who assume hypotheses as first principles of their speculations . . . may indeed form an ingenious romance, but a romance it will still be.
      —ROGER COTES, PREFACE TO SIR
      ISAAC NEWTON’S Principia
      Mathematica, SECOND EDITION, 1713

      Less elegantly, you are just making sh*t up to please yourself. It’s an interesting story, but it doesn’t correspond to objective reality.

    • Mandos says:

      More faux psychology…

      You know Nasim, I’m a law clerk specialized in criminal law in the Netherlands at one of the courts of appeal in the Netherlands (the court of appeal of Arnhem, to be precise). One of the specific duties of this court is to evaluate people who have committed crimes due to suffering from a variety of mental illnesses and disorders (including schizophrenia, personality disorders, psychopathy and pedophilia, to name but a few) and have been sentenced to involuntary committment in a forensic psychiatric clinic (we call it ‘terbeschikkingstelling’ or ‘TBS’ in Dutch). Evaluation by the court will occur every one or two years. During these evaluations the court determines if any progress is made in treatment of the convict, and if it will be safe to release the convict into society. In general, the court will follow conclusions made by the TBS-clinic. Independent psychiatrists and psychologists may also be asked to report to the court.

      One of things I’ve learned over years by working on these cases is that one of the primary tenets in modern day psychology and psychiatry is to NEVER make a diagnosis regarding someone’s supposed psychopathology without actually having evaluated the subject IN PERSON. You are either not qualified in modern day psychology or psychiatry, or if you are, you’re basically breaking one of the primary tenets in modern day psychology or psychiatry. Whatever it is, the fact that you wrote all this drivel without ever having met or talked Amanda in person exposes you for a fraud.

      • Len D. says:

        Well stated. Sadly, it will probably not deter him.

        • Nor will it deter any of the others, Len.

          I assume Amanda’s purpose in allowing these absurd, negative posts is to expose how close-minded, mean spirited, and irrational these haters are.

          While replying will never change their minds, it does demonstrate the utter lack of foundation for the conviction. Those who continue to believe Amanda is guilty do so based on an imaginary character created by the tabloids, and fabricated evidence that is objectively meaningless.

          That being said, great pics!

      • Som Nathan says:

        Perfectly stated. Nasim is fraud. He will not stand a chance if it one is to one, in person with any one of here. He believes in lies, fantasies and taking advantage of the weak and defenseless, just like what “poor” Rudy Guede did to Meredith.

      • Somebody says:

        Actully Amanda has given MANY interviews, some hours of long where she talks and answers a lots of personal guestions, and she also wrote a book. There are some things that an intelligent human can make about somebody’s mental state based on these interviews.
        I was once visiting in psychiatric care unit. I saw a lot of people there that showed clear signs of mental ilness or other issues with mental health. One had ripped her hair off, one was anorectic, one seriously depressed, one demented, staring in the emptiness, one was walking around in underwear, one was childlike adult, etc. We humans have a skill to tell when someone isn’t normal or that we should be alerted with them. That’s reality and we all use it every day, it’s a survival mechanism, becaues some of them can kill. You can just read from wikipedia what are the signs of a psychopath.

        • Mandos says:

          Somebody. it occasionally happens that a TBS-patient refuses to speak to the independent psychiatrists and psychologists. These experts have access to all the court documents, all previous evaluations, all the clinical reports about the patients’ behaviour during their stay in the clinic….everything. You could say that they have plenty of information to make a reasoned evaluation. However, when a patient refuses to speak to the independent experts, these experts will refuse to state a formal diagnosis, risk assessment or to make any recommendations for treatment. It really is a central tenet of modern day psychiatry and psychology and to do otherwise is widely regarded as medical malpractice.

          It. Is. Just. Not. Done.

        • Stephane G says:

          « Anybody has given her the benefit of a doubt »… but you, a few tabloids, thousands of « guilters », judges, police officers, journalists… That’s a lot of « nobody », Somebody.

          A « history of violence »… because she has been fined for a noisy party ? « Criminal activities »… because she has been smoking a few spliffs ? OK. I confess and will not “hide from myself” any longer : I have been doing the same – and much worse – for a long long time. Call Interpol : there’s a criminal mastermind running free and posting on this blog with an endless file of unforgivable crimes. And he is NOT Amanda.

          Now, if you seriously believe that you can diagnose a psychosis (which one exactly ?) from Amanda’s interviews, just as some pretend to be « human lie detectors » and feel allowed and compelled to judge every movement of her chin (no kidding : I’ve read such idiocies !), you know a lot less about psychiatry than some Perugian officers about the way to keep and protect a crime scene. Thanks God, this is NOT how psychiatry works. If you’ve been visiting a psychiatry care unit, it is the least you should have learned from your experience.

    • Kelly Conig says:

      Wow, they posted no comments on your photos that you shared…just gestures and hostility. Your photos are very beautiful. Some must have deep meaning to you…the cross, the clock, the adding machine…Thank you for sharing this side of you to us. God is with you. He fashioned you with His hands. He has made you intelligent, courageous, He has put great thought into your life…you do not stand alone, because He is there, right there beside you…Please keep posting pictures and things of interest to you, like a poem, or guitar, or just anything that points us towards the positive. Blessings.

      • Scott says:

        I am glad Amanda is nurturing new interests and skills such as these nice pictures she has posted (I was a CBS cameraman during 1979-1980). It’s time she led her life…

        Scott

    • Sarah H says:

      Nasim, what kind of person are you, that you are so eager to find evil where there is none? You should look at the hatred in your own heart that drives you to attack a person who — according to the only logical view of all the evidence — is so clearly innocent.

    • Som Nathan says:

      Birds of same feather flock together. Why am I not surprised at Guilter Nasim agreeing with a another Guilter Celeste. They speak from experience. They murdered someone and now they have this opportunity to express their “passive-aggressive” feeling at the site provided by Amanda. They themselves portray their hate and vengeance towards innocent and weak people. Just like what one of their own Buddy Rudy Guede did when he slashed Meredith’s throat and then when she lay dying he raped her.

      Nasim, Celeste, in your definition, is that passive-aggression or plain old aggression.

      You psychopaths are beyond repair.

      I think you have something to do with Meredith’s murder, you are not telling. You portray all the traits of a passive-aggressive murderer.

    • Rob H says:

      Every single claim “nasim” has put forward on this blog to suggest the guilt of Ms Knox has been comprehensively refuted. In this post he gives up with any attempt to consider real case evidence altogether and simply attacks Ms Knox’s character and personality (and Ms Kercher’s too) with wild statements absent any basis in truth, yet purporting to be fact and with language he is not qualified to use – “Amanda also has certain obsessive, narcissistic and perhaps even psychotic traits” and ..”a turbocharged version of passive-aggression…”.

      But his conduct on this blog has been extraordinary.

      This fraud…

      – claims that there are missing shoes belonging to Ms Knox which implicate her in the crime and points to a box in a photograph of Ms Knox’s room as his proof!
      – claims that young people make “fast friends” and that therefore Ms Knox and Guede MUST have been friends!
      – claims that where a sample first tested positive with luminol but subsequently negative for blood (with TMB), it is safe to rely on the luminol test as proof of blood, yet despite challenge after challenge, is unable to produce any scientific opinion or previous case citations in support of himself.
      – is unable to produce a narrative of events on the night of the murder based on the case evidence demonstrating Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito’s guilt.
      – is unable to produce any evidence, scientific or otherwise as proof that it is possible to clean a knife of blood yet leave DNA in situ.
      – claims that there was a clean up both inside and outside the murder room conducted by Ms Knox yet is unable to produce a shred of evidence demonstrating how it was possible for her to do this – identifying and removing EVERY trace of herself including the invisible ones – nor the means by which she cleaned up nor that it happened in the first place.

      • Doug Moodie says:

        It’s a great thing that you are here, keeping Nasium honest!

      • Nasim says:

        Rob H I don’t wish to defraud you.
        – I brought up the shoe box in a failed attempt to move the discussion away from boring talking points. Amanda undoubtedly knows what was in the shoe box. She won’t say. I get it.
        – A corollary of the maxim that it’s harder to make friends when you’re older is that it’s relatively easy to make them when you’re younger. Young people routinely form friendships of convenience. I do not claim that Amanda and Rudy MUST have been friends but I can easily see them becoming friends for some purpose.
        – The sensitivity of luminol versus TMB must always be considered in the context of how the test is conducted. The type of TMB test used in this case was the Combur test strips which were originally designed to detect blood in urine. It’s hard to find data that directly compares luminol with Combur testing of cotton gauze extracts. The Carabinieri use a similar but not identical technique described in this Powerpoint: “http://chimica.campusnet.unito.it/didattica/att/1250.0639.file.pdf” and report a sensitivity of 1:250,000 for Combur and 1:5,000,000 for luminol.
        – My narrative is like most people’s who believe in guilt, that Amanda and Raffaele got together with Rudy, possibly initially with the intent to use drugs, which then turned into a plan to prank Meredith that escalated out of control.
        – I reserve judgment on the knife pending what Nencini has to say about it. I have my doubts but people smarter than I am think it’s credible evidence.
        – The evidence of a clean up is indisputable. A recent post on PMF dot org identified around 28 different signs at the cottage alone. Since the police only sampled a tiny fraction of Meredith’s room it’s not surprising that Amanda’s DNA was not found, just like it is not surprising that Rudy’s DNA was not found anywhere in the house EXCEPT Meredith’s room where he had sexual contact with the victim. It is actually a huge surprise, a godsend if you will, that Raffaele’s DNA was found on the clasp.

        • jamesrae says:

          Nasim – Nam – Naseur.

          Spinning around and around and around.

        • Angela Smitherman says:

          “a plan to prank Meredith that escalated out of control”

          ….whoa.

          I’ve read that pablum before but just once I’d like to read an accompanying explanation that actually makes sense as to why on earth Raffaele, or Guede for that matter, would participate in such a plan.

        • HH says:

          Nasim: Raffaele’s dna and fingerprints were found on Meredith’s door from when he tried to break it open.

        • Antony says:

          Nasim: - My narrative is like most people’s who believe in guilt, that Amanda and Raffaele got together with Rudy, possibly initially with the intent to use drugs, which then turned into a plan to prank Meredith that escalated out of control.

          What time in the evening did they meet up with Rudy Guede? What time did they enter the cottage? What time did the attack on Meredith take place? What evidence do you have to support your “narrative”?

          If you can’t fit this narrative, including timings, to match the known facts, then it’s of no value. Remember, the prosecution put great store by the testimony of Antonio Curatolo, who claimed to have seen them standing in the piazza for the entire evening – never meeting Guede, and never actually entering the cottage. Do you accept the Curatolo testimony?

          - I reserve judgment on the knife pending what Nencini has to say about it. I have my doubts but people smarter than I am think it’s credible evidence.

          They need it to be “credible evidence”. That’s not the same as it being credible evidence.

          - The evidence of a clean up is indisputable. A recent post on PMF dot org identified around 28 different signs at the cottage alone.

          Is this the source of your information? Anonymously posted claims by bloggers at a site which bans anyone who doesn’t toe the party line of unquestionable guilt? You don’t even provide a link to this post on PMF. I dare to suggest that it wouldn’t pass scrutiny by any fair-minded person.

          It is actually a huge surprise, a godsend if you will, that Raffaele’s DNA was found on the clasp.

          “Godsend” or conjuring trick? Judging by the antics of the investigators who filmed themselves retrieving the clasp, it was certainly no surprise to them that it would ultimately be “found” to carry Raff’s DNA.

          • Somebody says:

            Antony; Guede answers all your guestions. Just use google to search Guede’s all statements, I’m sure you can use google, many FOA’s can’t, they ask people to write it all down here. Try at least.
            thanks
            s

          • HH says:

            Somebody: I’ll google them, but please explain to me why I should consider anything Guede says as credible.

            He was caught red-handed. By that I mean he left his red hand print behind in Meredith’s blood.

          • Antony says:

            Somebody: Antony; Guede answers all your guestions. Just use google to search Guede’s all statements,

            So, in other words, I have to do the research to to make your case for you?

            I’m sure you can use google, many FOA’s can’t, they ask people to write it all down here.

            Which is as it should be. If you have a coherent narrative of the crime involving Amanda and Raff that fits the known facts, then the onus falls on you to describe it – or at least provide a URL link to where it can be found.

            As for Guede, if there were any truth in the suggestion that he acted in concert with the 2 students, then there can be no doubt that his story would be well-known, including timings such as how and when they met up. The fact that all of this remains a mystery (unlike the timeline where he acted alone) is a very strong indication that there was no meeting between the 3 of them, let alone one that led to murder.

            It remains one of the scandals of this entire travesty that Amanda and Raff’s representatives have never been allowed to question him.

        • Andrea Jonasson says:

          Nasim, you are free to believe whatever unlikely thing you wish, and use whatever made-up pseudo-science and specious reasoning you like to prop up your beliefs.

          However, when you actively exercise your beliefs to do harm to others, you have an ethical responsibility to hold yourself to scientific standards set by the scientific community, not the anonymous internet poster community.

          It is wrong for you to continue to use the following scientifically unsupportable contentions to persecute Amanda and Raffaele:

          1) The luminol footprints which tested negative for blood using TMB are set in blood. Science says NO. See Patrizia Sefanoni’s trial testimony.

          2) Meredith’s DNA was found on the kitchen knife. Science says NO. Testing was negative for blood. The LCN DNA testing was not carried out correctly, and complete testing records have never been provided. See Conti and Vechiotti report and refer to testimony of RIS Caribinieri.

          3) The finding of Raffaele’s DNA on the bra clasp could only have been deposited during the murder. Science says NO. Watch the evidence collection video. Look at the before and after pictures of the crime scene. Read the Conti Vechiotti report.

          4) The autopsy results prove that there were more than one attacker. Science says YOU CAN’T KNOW. Dr. Lalli, who conducted the autopsy, says you can’t tell how many attackers. Of the other experts who reviewed the autopsy only one ventured to say that there must have been multiple attackers. The consensus? You can’t know for sure.

          Believe what you like, But stop persecuting Amanda and Raffaele based on contentions that are not supported by standards acceptable to the scientific community.

    • Doug Moodie says:

      Unlike most Knox supporters on this board, I’ve come to appreciate you commentary Nasim. I used to take you seriously, but now I realize your comments are ment as comedy. You are the Ann Coulter of Amanda Knox . com ( you’re not Ann Coulter are you?). Your goal is to stretch your antagonistic feelings towards Knox into a verbal surrealism. Your comments about HIV testing are still the best though. Telling us to check out a study you knew we could not access and then claiming that the false positive rate for the HIV test is 99% was hilarious.

      I do hope you were joking. If not, you have my apologies, and my sympathy.

      • Nasim says:

        I found the article fairly easily. It’s called “The false-positive and false-negative predictive value of
        HIV antibody test in the Chinese population.” It’s a PDF. If you look at Table 2 you see that the false-positive rate of the 2008-era HIV test in blood donors (a very low risk population similar in risk to white female college students) is 99.697%.

        • Doug Moodie says:

          Could you supply the link. I can find an abstract, but the study is behind a wall – I have to be a member of the med pub community. There are plenty of sources that disagree with this. Just google hiv false positive. They disagree sharply with the finding you are claiming. That is why it is important that I can find the study you claim contains a 99% false positive result rate. Can you add the link?

    • quixotic1 says:

      What are the other reasons?

    • GT says:

      Nasim: You are off topic, and incoherent. At this point all I can say is that drugs or alcohol were probably involved and your attack was probably planned. Why don’t you just choose a screen name that suits you, like “Sybil?”

    • Stephane G says:

      Nasim, I think you are not trying to understand what made Amanda kill, as you say, (assuming that she did) but you are making the bricks of a constructed proof and, therefore, are lying to yourself. As you stated yourself, most people with a simple personality disorder like passive-aggressiveness don’t kill but you share this common belief that most of the killers have to suffer from a kind of mental disorder. I assume you don’t go around the Web from blog to blog in order to analyse bloggers psychology for the sake of it. What you are doing here is trying to prove Amanda is suffering from a mental illness because it is one of the elements you need to build a plausible and guilty killer. Especially since no serious or rather unquestionable ground for acting has ever been produced, you need a “disordered enough” character who can kill without a clear or bearable reason. Even with the help of drug and alcohol (btw, I often heard this “drug and alcohol” theme but not a drop of alcohol has ever been mentioned in the analysis or court reports, if I remember well…). And even a NPD (if we theorize one second that Amanda could be a narcissistic personality as it has been said) does not mean you will eventually go amok and kill someone you are disagreeing with on casual matters. NPD itself is widely discussed and has almost been eliminated from DSM-5, btw.

      In other words, you hypothesize Amanda killed to demonstrate… that she killed. Because, in lack of an unquestionable motive, you need to go through this mental disorder stage. I understand that could be helpful if you could demonstrate a heavily psychotic personality (schizophrenia, delusion, hallucinations, paranoia…) which has never been diagnosed in Amanda before or after the events. And this cannot be seriously proven from simple conversations. You need to know the patient and spend some time with him/her. Now assuming you knew Amanda well enough you could search the whole DSM IV or 5 and finally point out two or three traces of personality disorders as with half of the population. But as half of the population did not – and probably will never – kill, this would not prove much, once again.

      At last, from what I read from her family, friends and teachers about Amanda’s past behavior, she has been described (I cannot confirm she is but that is what has been reported) as a rather assertive personality. Besides, nothing shows she has been obviously restrained from expressing her feelings in her family and early life. And she showed a lot of interest for new experiences and change. All these certainly do not suggest a passive – aggressive PD.

      OK. Let’s get back to the pictures…

    • Mark (AKA Supernaut) says:

      “Passive-aggressiveness”?

      That sums you up PERFECTLY.

      And how strange to see, when it’s evinced by a self-proclaimed representative of the Godhead.

      Are you REALLY this strange?

      Or just a paid shill?

  37. TomG says:

    Hi there Amanda! Greetings from Scotland.

    I had a discussion on the IIP forum about the fact that Filomena and Laura had lawyered up after Meredith had been killed. The point raised was did they ever offer you the same advice? Did you consider that to get a lawyer at that time may have been suspicious? Sorry if this point has been raised previously!

    Hoots!

    • Amanda says:

      TomG,

      Filomena and Laura did not advise me to get a lawyer and it never occurred to me that I would need one. As far as I understood the situation, I was simply helping the police.

      Best,
      a

      • Len D. says:

        You had only lived there a short time so you were still getting acclimated to the area, the people, and how things were done so I wouldn’t expect that you would feel a need to retain a lawyer early on. The other Italians, however, would have some idea on what it was like to deal with the police for no other reason than they were born and raised in Italy. Did the other Italians (not just Raf) think it was odd that BOTH Filomena and Laura “lawyered up” so quickly despite having no connection to the crime? Was it dismissed as normal or two overly cautions legal assistants? Looking back, it sure looks like a red flag.

      • GT says:

        As far as I understood what I could filter from all the news embellishment, I and most of us agree and believe that. I hope you appeal the charge of accusing Patrick, because it is obvious to me that under stress you were just allowing that what the police conjured up, that Patrick was a likely suspect, could be real and you could not give him an alibi. I can imagine him as the killer, why not? I wasn’t there, how should I know? If the police were so demanding of me in that situation hypothetically, I would have agreed that anyone could have done it, and if the police say it is so, why disagree? Upon imprisonment you had the wits to write your own version, not the dictated Italian “statement” and it is very clear that you did not agree with the police version, but still feared to not contradict their accusation of Patrick.

        • Stephane G says:

          I think the charge for slander (calumnia) came now to a final judgment. Amanda is now appealing to the ECHR.

          • Gregory Thomson says:

            Well I fully support that as a sane member of the human race. I would like to see some support from Patty Murray.

      • Somebody says:

        So, Amanda, when police asked you: “do you want a lawyer” you said no because you thought you didn’t need it?

  38. Mari says:

    The last picture is so cute!

  39. Doug Moodie says:

    Someone I know told me this story. He heard from a friend who saw this on the news, or maybe got it off the internet, or maybe heard from someone. I’m really not sure. The story goes like this –
    two people, one a confirmed guilter (G) and the other someone who wasn’t sure, a doubter (D), were walking around New York, or maybe it was Seattle, or it could have been Memphis ( no, it couldn’t be Memphis, that’s where she was spotted playing basketball with Elvis). It was somewhere, and to their surprise who should G and D see walking nearby but Amanda Knox.

    G said : That’s Amanada Knox!
    D: Okay.
    G: Just look at her, what arrogance, looking up at the sky like she’s better than everyone. What cold hearted arrogance. Not a trace of remorse!
    D: Well now, it is starting to rain. Could she be looking at the clouds?
    G: No, you don’t know the real story about her, only what her PR machine has lead you to believe. Just look at her now, looking down at the street. A clear sign of internalized hostility. Could anyone display guilt more clearly?
    D: First she is looks up, now down. Both are signs of guilt? Maybe she just doesn’t want to trip stepping off the curb.
    G: No, if only you knew what I knew. Here she goes – first she looks to the right, and then the left, obviously to avoid eye contact. See, she’s full of shame. She knows what she did. One more sure sign of guilt. Keep racking them up Amanda.
    D: Look both ways before crossing a street, that’s what I was told.
    G: That’s not why she does it. She’s full of shame. She’d feel better if she just unburdened herself. Now look – she’s staring straight ahead! Daring anyone to look at her. Total disregard for everyone else! How selfish. That’s a sociopath for you.
    D: Or, she could be just crossing the street?
    G: And now what is she up to? Putting up an umbrella? Why? So she can push everyone away. Her aggressive side is coming out. You can’t hide forever Amanda. Selfishly carving out her ‘territory’. An aggressive arrogant sociopath. What more proof do you need?
    D: Plus, I’m guessing, she likes to stay dry in the rain. Speaking of which, I am getting soaked. Can we go?
    G: No, now look, what is she doing with that man! And right in the middle of the street too. Some kind of perverted sex act! Look, she has a whip or a cane or something!
    D: I don’t think so. See, she is just offering to share her umbrella with a blind man, and carrying his cane, and helping him across the street.
    G: Look how she whispers in his ear! She’s putting him under a sex spell. Look, how she waves her arm around, and he follows – just like a little puppy. She’s hypnotizing him! To be her slave! She’s using her erotic charms to plot something evil. There she is, making the choice for evil. Right in front of our eyes!
    D: All I see is her hailing a cab. And see, here it comes. What you saw as a sex spell is simply her offering to share a cab with the blind man, so that he can get out of the rain, and she can go home.
    G: No, no. It’s nothing like that. Amanda Knox may play the innocent, but I’m not fooled. Each one of her actions by itself could be innocent. But come on, all of them? Taken together it’s very suspicious. Believe me, I know. I know Amanda Knox.
    D: How do you know? How did you come to know so much about Amanda Knox that convinces you that she is so bad?
    G: Well, someone I know told me this story. He heard from a friend who saw this on the news, or maybe got it off the internet, or maybe heard from someone. I’m really not sure. The story goes like this -

    • GT says:

      LOL good for you. Isn’t that the story all along.

    • Nick Green (UK) says:

      Comedy gold, Doug. :-)

      This whole case has actually provided many fascinating insights into the psychological problems of a large proportion of human society. It’s invaluable to science. I only wish that two innocent people didn’t have to suffer in order for us to gather this data.

    • Chris Meyering says:

      I have a true story to add to this…first off,I’m interested in this case because a similar event happened to a friend of mine when I was living in Peru.

      But to the point, When my Peruvian wife first came to America, we went shopping and bought some items for the house. At the cashier was a teenager looking very disinterested in her job. Well, that was my interpretation of the event, a bored clock watching teenager. We bought the items, got a quick disingenuous thank you without eye contact and the cashier went back to looking at her nails. When we were walking away, My wife speaks up, “…you see how rude she was to me! It’s because Americans hate Immigrants and she treated me with disrespect because I’m a foreigner.”

      First off, the Cashier was of Mexican Decent, and the Mall was in a Heavily ethnic area, probably about 40% Hispanic immigrants and 40% Asian Immigrants.

      But two of us looking at exactly same event and coming to a completely different conclusion of what transpired.

  40. Larry Saltzman says:

    Beautiful work. You have much to give the world.

  41. Jack Friend says:

    As an avid gardener, I love the photos of flowers especially the bud vs. the flower. I appreciate and admire your willingness to share a part of yourself considering what you have been through.

    Celeste, I can’t say I agree with your point of view. I don’t know how else one can respond to those who say disrespectful things to another. If Miss Knox was my daughter, I would probably want to respond in a very unpleasant manner to some of the things that get said about her. Given that, ” I am sorry you feel that way” is a pretty tame response. Those who say disrespectful things should be the ones who evaluate why they have to say such things to people they don’t know.

  42. Kelly Conig says:

    Hello Miss, lovely pictures, I always walk around my campus this time of year and take photos as well. Miss, with all this beauty around, do you think that you will ever have faith as deep as your priest friend? Peace.

  43. Mason West says:

    Wonderful pictures. Thank you. Do you think that the time you spent incarcerated, through its deprivations, perhaps sharpened your eye (artistically speaking)? You are a good writer, and I know from your book that you were practicing writing–as all writers are compelled to write–before you even went to Perugia–but do you think that doing time improved the writing skills as well? Best wishes. –mw.

  44. Celeste says:

    Amanda, I noticed that when a reader says something disrespectful to you on this blog you often respond with, “I’m sorry you feel that way.” Did you know that’s considered the quintessential passive-aggressive retort? Have you read anything about the psychological basis of passive-aggressiveness in your quest to better understand yourself? I think it has a great deal to do with what happened on the night of November 1, 2007.

    PS. I like the adding machine photo. There are a lot of interesting photos like this if you google optical illusion photography.

    • Mark Saha says:

      Celeste,

      Yours is quintessential passive-aggressive. The P.S. is a master stroke.

    • Mark says:

      I’m sorry to hear you feel that way about the movie Amélie.

    • Rob H says:

      I’m sorry you feel that way, “celeste”

      I thought all the “colpevolisti” (AKA “the nutters”) regarded Ms Knox as a throat slashing murderer! I don’t think there’s anything PASSIVE-aggressive about that. You seem to be tripping over your own feet these days.

      Don’t you people have somewhere you all go at the weekend? A “retreat” or a “re-education” centre where you all learn how to think like nutters, dress in tutus (Peter Quennell likes his ballerinas) and recite mantras?

      Time for your next visit, I think, “celeste”.

      • GT says:

        By the way, you have the context of “nutters” exactly right, as Kate Beckensale intended her comment.

    • Anna (a.k.a. Niteangel on injusticeanywhere) says:

      LOL speaking of “passive-aggressive”, did you look at yourself in the mirror Celeste?

    • BigDinBoise says:

      Celeste – it might be a passive aggressive phrase but it is also one commonly used by a great number of people and Amanda’s use of it actually doesn’t require a psychologist to understand it is her polite and rational way of dealing with people that hate her but do not know her or understand the truth. What is the direct way to deal with them in your opinion? Should she just tell you people to eff-off then?

      Do you realize that your post to Amanda is itself passive aggressive in nature? And in a much more irrational and underhanded way, I would add. You just so subtly but indirectly suggest she had something to do with Meredith’s murder, and yet you give her her a little compliment and helpful advise at the end. Why? Is this to demonstrate what a compassionate and helpful person you are? Before you go dishing out armchair advise, maybe you should take a look into the psychological basis for your own passive aggressiveness in your quest to better understand yourself Celeste.

      • Elias says:

        Hmmm. I don’t think it is a “passive aggressive” phrase.

        I think it is a very kind phrase.

        Of course many phrases can be spun with a little addition of a comma and the word “asshole.”

        ;)

        • BigDinBoise says:

          That’s just what some psychologist say Elias. But who cares? People are passive-aggressive to one another all day, everyday… apparently it’s mistaken for politeness.

          Maybe Celeste would prefer the non-passive aggressive phrase, STFU? I certainly wish she would.

      • TomG says:

        I don’t think there’s a human being on this planet that can’t be diagnosed psychologically one way or another! I doesn’t make us all potentially homicidal.

        Hoots!

    • Elias says:

      Celeste,

      Whatever Amanda’s psychological makeup, it had nothing to do with what happened on the night of Nov. 1st 2007 as regards to the tragic murder of Meredith Kercher by the truly psychologically disturbed serial criminal turned killer named Rudy Guede.

      On the evening of November 1st, 2007, Amanda spent the night in in a love bubble with her new boyfriend.

      How she was portrayed in the tabloid press was criminally merciless character assassination. Amanda is still very young, most of us are very different when we are say, 46, as opposed to 26.

      Additionally, I don’t think anyone who doesn’t actually know Amanda Knox in real life (I don’t) and has known her since before the case, can make any qualified assessment of her psychological make up. All the outside world has really seen are select moments blown up and distorted by the press…and everyone who thinks the are a know it all thanks to the internet…

      I often use the expression “my guess,” because none of us who are not in the lives of Amanda and Rafaelle can really say anything with certainty.

      From reading their books, and seeing their interviews, my impression, and my guess is that they were both gentle people when they met, Rafaelle a little more shy than Amanda, apparently, but the public really knows very little about Amanda before Meredith’s murder by Rudy Guede. My guess is she was more of a people pleaser than “passive aggressive.”

      My impression of her is that she is extremely honest, and this case has forced her to be a public person and have so much, too much of her private life taken from her…in a way she has been forced into “radical honesty” (google for the book).

      Does she have some wounds from childhood? That show in her personality? Probably. Who doesn’t. As Scott Peck wrote “life is difficult,” and almost all children suffer traumas in the growth process. People, kids, in wonderful families, can find the society, other kids, other people cruel, hurtful and upsetting. All of those little bits inform our personalities as we grow and develop. Read a few books on passive aggressive behavior disorders, or control freaks, or verbal abusers, or narcissistic personality disorders.

      I met and know a lot of people in my life, and I am very, very, very well educated in psychology — it’s been my avocation for 40 years. I don’t see someone passive aggressive. I see someone who has been changed by the trauma and wounds she received in this tragic story. Think about it, she’s innocent, yet she can’t show any frustration or anger about — which would be natural for most people — at any moment, any time she is in the public eye — because deluded guilters would spin it into a piece of “osmotic” character evidence that she was/is some female she devil criminal master mind.

      2 young people that are honor students, don’t break bad, don’t break devil worshipping group sex fiends a week after they meet and are struck by lightening and in a young love bubble.

      It never happens.

      They are innocent, and then some.

    • Julie Jorgensen says:

      A poem in an early-twentieth-century school textbook runs:

      “Oho!” said the pot to the kettle;
      “You are dirty and ugly and black!
      Sure no one would think you were metal,
      Except when you’re given a crack.”

      “Not so! not so!” kettle said to the pot;
      “‘Tis your own dirty image you see;
      For I am so clean – without blemish or blot –
      That your blackness is mirrored in me.”

      —Maxwell’s Elementary Grammar, 1904, [citation needed]

      I always wondered where that famous saying, “the pot called the kettle black” came from.

      • Hide Baert says:

        Dear Julie,
        Actually, we have the same saying in Dutch: “De pot verwijt de ketel dat hij zwart is.”
        Phew! I like it that this website allows me to write in the ‘wrong language’ without automatically correcting me.

        My native language is Dutch. A couple years ago, I came from Gent in Belgium (I belong to the Northern Dutch-speaking tribe, aka the Flemish Primitives).

        Just like you, I don’t really know where that saying came from.
        My suggestion: Flanders is not that far from England. Just swim across the Channel, an athletic and not impossible feat.

      • Hide Baert says:

        Dear Julie,

        Oops, I got the last word of the Dutch saying wrong.
        The correct?? version is: “De pot verwijt de ketel dat hij zwart ziet.”

        Maybe I can sleep over it for one night.
        “Slaapwel” Have a good night!

        • Julie Jorgensen says:

          Het is heerlijk om supporters voor Amanda hebben over de hele wereld, waaronder Nederland. Dank u voor uw reactie op de Nederlandse versie van deze beroemde idioom en het was leuk om te horen van je.

          • Julie Jorgensen says:

            It’s wonderful to have supporters for Amanda all over the world, including the Netherlands. Thank you for your response to the Dutch version of this famous idiom and it was nice to hear from you.

    • Som Nathan says:

      @Celeste. Yep! There it is, again. No matter what Amanda does, the guilters pounce on her. They want to establish her guilt right here. “Look she is smiling, or why is she not crying, or look how she rolled her eyes, or look she has tears in her eyes but those are not real”, this list goes on and on.
      Hey Celeste who ever you are, go read and understand how you behave in public with all your psycho analysis.
      In the mean time just bear in mind, Amanda and Raffele are lovely, beautiful, truthful, loving and caring people. They ARE NOT what Perugian prosecutor and police pschopaths have projected them to be. Migninni being the ring leader from day one.
      Rudy Guede is the sole criminal, who broke-in, raped, robbed and murdered lovely Meredith Kercher that fateful evening on Nov. 1 2007. That is the fact. Rudy is the only one who knows that he killed Meredith, and he also knows he has well wishers and protectors in Perugian police and prosecution. That is why he will soon be free to kill again.
      This is classical case of COVERUP the mistakes done by police during their investigation. They are being protected by Italian Justice System.
      There is no REAL evidence against Amanda & Raffelle, except the concocted stories, lies and fabrications progressed by Perugian prosecutors to defend their “CASE CLOSED” bullshit, even when the full results of the investigation were not complete.

      THIS CASE AGAINST AMANDA & RAFFELE IS BIASED AND COMPROMISED. THERE IS NO HOPE THAT THEY WILL GET A FAIR TRIAL.

      YET THEY ARE INNOCENT AND BEAUTIFUL AS THESE PICTURES BY AMANDA.

      Celeste, in the mean time keep quilting and keep living in the dark corner of fantasy and lies. OR, simply except the truth, it’s out there, glaring at you.

      AMANDA & RAFFELE’S INNOCENCE DESERVES A CHANCE AND MOST OF ALL JUSTICE. IT’S GOOD FOR ALL EXCEPT RUDY GUEDE AND SOME MEMBERS IN PERUGIAN POLICE AND PROSECUTORS.

    • Doug Moodie says:

      “Your visions wll become clear only when you can look into your own heart. Who looks outside, dreams; who looks inside, awakens” – Carl Jung.

      That quote is meant for you to consider Celeste, not Amanda. She knows her own heart. That’s one of the few good things that unjust suffering teaches.

    • W. says:

      Celeste: It’s also a way of blowing someone off nicely. Shit can the amateur psychology.

    • Sarah H says:

      Amanda, unlike you, Celeste, shows incredible maturity and self-restraint in the face of great challenges.

      You are a small, vindictive person who shows your littleness in every post.

    • Caro says:

      Celeste: Get well soon!

    • GT says:

      Celeste: Amanda is just offering those people pity as they are about to be the fodder of people who like me are ready to engage your pseudo sympathetic attacks. I for one am not sorry for you, and your multiple fake personas. And for the record, the Knox PR Machine is people who hate people like you and support her on the basis of truth, are not on the payroll, rather they pay to support her. How much do you pay to support your boy, Rudy? Just sayin.

    • kwill says:

      Or, you know, maybe she really is just sorry you feel that way.

      As in, maybe Amanda Knox has about a zillion reasons to be sad that there are people who take to the internet on a daily basis with nothing on their minds except how much they hate her — a person they’ve never met and never will meet.

      I’m kinda sorry they feel that way too. Call me passive-aggressive if you want, but I do think the world would be a better place if these folks could maybe find a better outlet for their misplaced venom.

      How about abused animals? Or human trafficking? Or people who won’t vaccinate their kids? Or any of a thousand things that really are wrong with the world?

  45. Mark Saha says:

    Thanks for these. Nice work, Amanda!

  46. Igor says:

    I really hope you meet your flying frog one day. Joking, a bit

  47. Albert Calleros says:

    Amanda:

    Estas hermosas fotos verdaderamente reflejan tu alma maravillosa. (These beautiful photos truly reflect your wonderful soul.

    Albert Calleros
    Fullerton, CA, USA

  48. Som Nathan says:

    Dear Amanda, you taken some simply beautiful pictures. A reflection of a beautiful mind and a soul.
    Stay strong and healthy.

  49. PK777 says:

    Hi Amanda. Quite good photos. I think the 10.13pm phone call that was made by MK’s phone is crucial to your defence. It connected to the Ponte Rio tower that no other calls from the cottage had done THAT DAY. I believe the prosecution had to go outside the cottage to connect to Ponte Rio tower. I understand that calls from the same place can connect to different towers depending on volume of usage. Looking at your phone records did your calls from inside the cottage EVER connect via Ponte Rio?

  50. DW says:

    These are great, Amanda! And I’m so happy to see something positive and happy on your blog … I was so …… sick of that Perugia via odia jerk’s mugshot. Happy spring to you and keep your spirits up.

  51. Elias says:

    Amanda,

    Here’s an interesting photographer / musician to check out:

    http://www.stevejansen.com/journal/paris_82.html

    Really happy that you are starting a new journey with a new art form!

    best,

    e

    • Stephane G says:

      Funny, I recognize a few places. A few pictures were made in the seventh district, I think. Cars and cops uniforms have changed in 22 years !

      Thanks Elias. Nice pictures.

  52. Ah, they’re lovely Amanda. Steve loved the pic of the cash register or adding machine or whatever it was. The symmetry spoke to him. He says he doesn’t know if that’s a good thing. :)

    I liked that part too, cause I kinda like that whole steam punk vibe and the old fashion feel. But I LOVED the flying frog! FUUUN.

    Actually, I love the flowers cause I love love flowers. I take whatever flowers I happen to have blooming (like your camelia in that one shot) and arrange them. It’s very fun and changes the mood of a home any day.

    I’m thrilled you did this. Do it again! Live every moment you can, even among these difficult times. That is the true definition of living because there are always hard times in one area or another. Your’s maybe just a bit harder than most of us, but do your thang Ms. Knox. -xox, ~m.

    • Elias says:

      Hi Michelle,

      I just want to publicly thank you here for what you did for Amanda and the world helping wake everyone up to the snow job that was going on in Perugia.

      Reading and learning about the case in the past few months, seeing how you challenged your hubby to look into things, and analyze things was really touching and inspiring, and gave me added faith in humans beings these days.
      (Of course the guilters are another story, lol.)

      Again, thank you and your husband for all you’ve done. It’s truly been inspirational to learn that everyday citizens can step up and make a difference and start to wake people up to a horrible travesty of injustice.

      All the best,

      e

  53. Julie Jorgensen says:

    I love the flying frog! My mom (who I miss dearly) had a frog collection so frogs of any kind remind me of her. They are cheery things to look at. I’ve never seen one that flew before. :)

    • Julie Jorgensen says:

      oops! “flies” not “flew”…oh well. I only teach English and grammar… :)

      • Julie Jorgensen says:

        Can I please ask the “guilters” to stop harrassing me every time I make a spelling error in my comments in various forums? Do I have to lay in hot ashes and ask for forgiveness every time I spell something incorrectly?

        I am not perfect. I make spelling errors. Somehow hundreds of students over 15 years have been kind enough to overlook these flaws and learn English despite it. In fact, I would have to say, I’m a darn good teacher…even with my imperfect spelling and occasional grammar errors. Luckily for me (or maybe for my students) I teach mostly beginning level English students who are new to our country. So, difficult spelling words don’t often come up in the course of a day of teaching.

        Phew! I guess it just puzzles me why my imperfections either as a speller or a person has any bearing on Amanda and her innocence? She is innocent regardless of any of the many foibles and weakness of those who support her.

  54. Brittany says:

    My favorite kind of art :)

  55. Hide Baert says:

    Love the photos. For me their sequence is special.
    They hold together in one little family.
    Especially, the pussy willows in the middle act as a nice transition between the three pictures (the ochre trio) at the bottom and the three pictures of outdoors flowers and scenery above.
    And this rather odd perch for the sea gull crowns it all.
    Let him or her fly high up in the sky!

    Best wishes, Hilde

  56. Sarah H says:

    Glad you can still see the beauty in the world . . . and the humor.

  57. Brian says:

    These beautiful photos show that yur creativity extends beyond writing. Well done, and I’m sure the diversion is welcome!

    Stay strong —

  58. Elias says:

    Kewl! You gots talent!

  59. Anna (a.k.a. Niteangel on injusticeanywhere) says:

    Nice pictures! I have never been to a photo safari, I should try that one of these days, but I am not near as talented as you are lol my pictures are not very good and are often blurry.

    And I will be a party pooper (I apologize in advance), a thought crossed my mind and I would like to share.

    The police could have done the same thing they did to Amanda, and Raffaele, to the other roommates and friends; ask whoever they (Laura, Filomena, Giacomo, and other friends) were with that evening/night if they could have sneaked out without the other one(s) knowing (and they probably would have had to answer that it was possible).

    But, as far as I know, the police didn’t do this to any of them.

    So, why didn’t they? Why question only Amanda and Raffaele in such a way?

    I think, in addition to the already known comments from certain people, like Edgardo Giobbi, it shows once more that the police already considered Amanda and Raffaele as suspects before the interrogation (night of Nov 5/6), which makes the fact that they didn’t record the interrogation even worse. The fact that Amanda hadn’t been called in – yet – for interrogation that night doesn’t mean anything, and it certainly didn’t prevent them from recording the interrogation either.

    And if they haven’t already, I wish that Filomena, Laura, Giacomo, and all the other friends, would wake up and smell the roses, and realise that the same thing could have been done to them, that their DNA was certainly found in the house (I don’t know if Giacomo had been at the upstairs apartment much tho) eventho it is not identified as such since their DNA was not sampled. There was also other profiles on the bra clasp, and Giacomo’s was likely there too.

  60. Tim radford says:

    Hi, love the photos,

    Just got back to the uk from a holiday on Seattle , visiting my sister,. Seattle is a lovely place enjoyed green lake, u village and alki beach , particularly Salty’s!

    Thinking and praying for you , hope you are keeping well

    Look after yourself

    Tim x

    Love tim

  61. Kathryn Wharton says:

    I walked thru the UW quad to see cherry blossoms. They’re mostly gone. Lots still in bloom around west Seattle. :)

  62. Julie Jorgensen says:

    The buds on the trees and flowers look amazing. How fun to finally have a little free time to really see beautiful things like this and get out into nature. Hope you can just relax and spend quality time with loved ones. Good luck as you prepare for your last and final semester of school. You are amazing!

  63. Grazia says:

    Dear Amanda,
    your photos for me show your polite and sensible soul. I think that every form of art represent the soul of a person… and for me yours is gentle and pure.
    they are very nice. I hope you will take and post more photos.
    Sorry for my English. I don’t speak and write english well.
    Good luck

    • Celeste says:

      Google brutal dictators with a soft side and you will see that a few practice photos signify nothing about the person who took them.

      • BigDinBoise says:

        “Google brutal dictators with a soft side” – why the hell would anybody do that and what does it have to do with Amanda’s photos? Sounds like more passive aggressiveness on your part Celeste. Why don’t you just be direct about it and say what you mean?

      • Elias says:

        Google “perception is projection,” and “delusion,” and then imagine looking yourself in the mirror and see the sad hate planted earlier in your life that you are projecting on an innocent person.

        Your words show you to be “ugly on the inside,” and you’ve probably etched it onto your face somewhere to. You can google how that works as well.

      • HH says:

        Celeste: You come across as sort of passive aggressive yourself. You’re just full of “advice” that isn’t really advice, but obvious personal digs.

        You really don’t know what happened on November 1, 2007 and the evidence doesn’t fit what you’re implying. You need to do some real research and get out of your own head.

        Who does the evidence point to? Where is the evidence Amanda was present during her friend’s murder? There is none. All the police have on her is her DNA (not her blood) and her footprints (that tested negative for blood) in her own house, where she had every right to be.

        The police could have done what they did to Amanda to anyone who lived in the house. They could have made a huge deal about Filomena sneaking into the house to get her laptop and claimed that she tampered with the crime scene. They chose not to. They didn’t take footprints from Laura or Filomena and they barely tested for their dna. The footprints that tested negative for blood could have belonged to either of them as well. They focused on Amanda from the outset and that’s when confirmation bias took over.

      • Som Nathan says:

        @Celeste, wow!! Comparing Amanda Knox to brutal dictators. You must be out of your mind. Your comments don’t affect Amanda as she deals with jerks like you on daily bases. But it exposes the dark side of you Celeste.
        Open your eyes, Spring has sprung and so will the innocence of Amanda and Raffele.

  64. alan da silva seddon says:

    Some good shots I must say. It causes me much pain that the killers of your “friend” Meredith Kercher are free to partake in such activities whilst she will never see such beauty again.

    • Julie Jorgensen says:

      I imagine Meredith can now see beauties that our minds cannot even fanthom and as Amanda’s friend I’m sure she is happy to see her enjoying life for a bit. I’m sure it causes her great pain to see Amanda continually, and unjustly accused of her murder and to see her true killer, Rudy Guede, about to receive his freedom and partake of activities he really does not deserve.

      • Celeste says:

        You think Meredith is in heavenly bliss except that it causes her great pain to see Amanda being accused of her murder? In other words she is in Limbo. You realize this is not a teaching of any major modern religion? It is a part of Native American “Blood Law”. Not that there’s anything wrong with that, but you might want to stop criticizing Mignini for his supposedly arcane beliefs.

        • Julie Jorgensen says:

          Celeste, I am not Native American and I do not know anything about this “blood law” that you mentioned. I believe, as many do, that heaven is a much more beautiful place than this world we now live. I don’t know how many religions believe that we keep our same personalities and thoughts and beliefs into the next life and that we are aware of those we have left behind, but I do. I do believe Meredith exists in a more wonderful and heavenly place. I do not consider this any type of limbo but a state of paradise. I also do believe she is fully aware of those things happening concerning this case and the unjust persecution of the accused. Based upon the kind and loving person that Meredith was during her life on earth, I can only surmise that she would be greatly troubled to see this happening and would want it to end. I truly can’t say how she would feel about Rudy Guede so those thoughts are based on what I would assume most people would feel. I suppose none of us know for sure until we take this journey for ourselves but it does give me hope to imagine the possibilities. For one with such a heavenly name it saddens me that you seem to be someone who looks for the darkness in people rather than their goodness.

          • Elias says:

            I don’t believe in an afterlife, which makes Rudy Guede’s crime of taking away Meredith’s life even more sickening.

            He robbed her of her one and only life.

            If Italy had collective brains, they demand that his previous convictions and appeals be thrown out and that he get life in prison.

            He needs to not be on the streets.

        • BigDinBoise says:

          I for for one will not, nor should anyone ever stop stop criticizing Mignini for his arcane or otherwise asinine beliefs.

        • Caroline says:

          oh hun only in your mind does that make sense. take a perfectly nice comment and make it something perverse!! get a life!!

        • Elias says:

          Blah, blah, blah. Mignini is delusional.

          Consulting a woman who talks to a dead priest??? That is not arcane. That’s delusional.

          Arcane, is that I appreciate some tiny branch of literature or art.

          You probably believe in past lives and astral projections and a parallel universe.

          Were you Cleopatra in a past life?

        • HH says:

          Mignini’s beliefs aren’t arcane, they are insane. He’s ruined many innocent people’s lives even before Amanda in the Monster of Florence case. If you read that book, you’ll find out he did the exact same thing to Mario Spezi with the misleading media leaks, the unfounded allegations, etc.

          Mignini needs to be doing jail time himself and he would be if not for the fact that jurisdiction prevented him from doing time for abuse of office and after that the statute of limitations took over.

        • Rob H says:

          What “celeste”? A concept of “Limbo” is widely shared (though not with that term) by many religions including followers of protestantism, but is principally associated with Catholic theology – Mignini is devout, I understand; whether because of this or despite it, many of his references at trial betrayed the arcane nature of his thinking.

          You critique Julie erroneously; her belief does not place Ms Kercher in limbo. You mis-understand the concept.

    • Caroline says:

      ONE killer—-RUDY GUEDE—-and yes it causes me great pain that he is allowed out of prison regularly to study, and near other women that he might hurt!!

    • Som Nathan says:

      @Alan …..
      Your mind and you are locked in a dark place.
      Please try coming out of those evil thoughts, and start seeing the beauty and innocence of things around you as they are.
      Remember Amanda is innocent, truthful and a beautiful soul plain and simple. I don’t know her but I can deduct her character as reflected in her writings and TV appearances. She is a great soul in human body as simply said. Dark forces cannot deter her.

  65. Tracey says:

    I thought the keyboard was a bunch of chocolate and vanilla tarts. LOL! Love the pics. They capture the stillness and beauty of a single moment in time. May your days be filled with many more!

  66. Stephane G says:

    Nice ! I’d say… a few basic little mistakes in some of the pics (light, framing, or focus) but for a first safari, and if you were not used to the camera (Nikon D80, I read…), that is a promising beginning. Get used to the settings and keep on shooting again and again ! Did you use an editing software ?

    And… Er… What kind of Keyboard is that ??

    • Amanda says:

      Stephane G,

      I’m sure there are plenty of mistakes. I’m very much at the beginning of trying to figure out how to use a decent camera and editing software. I’m borrowing a friend’s Nikon D80 and using the basic Picasa to edit. I’m really just improvising, though! If you have any pointers, I’m open and grateful for them.

      The keyboard I saw at an antique store in West Seattle. I thought it looked awesome and would be lovely for attempting to show some depth of field.

      Best,
      a

      • Stephane G says:

        Hello Amanda. Pointers ? Well I’d be too glad to give a few hints but it might be a bit long and not too convenient for the blog (when I talk about something I like, I can’t help but write pages ! ;-)).

        So, to start with, I will stick to general considerations. A picture is made of two things basically : what you see and the way you look at what you’re seeing. The final viewer should “feel” both. As some wrote here already, what you express through your pictures is a small window to your soul, your state of mind, your concerns, your mood, your values…

        I could compare it to playing and / or composing music. I know you’re a guitar player (I played music myself). You reach Shangri La the moment you can play exactly what you wanted to play and the way you wanted it to sound. At this stage the instrument is almost transparent. The listener knows exactly what you mean. Same thing with the camera. That means you have to work the technique and master it well enough until the settings won’t be a hurdle. You have to know – or feel – what you want and instinctively how you can get it. Then your heart can freely speak.

        The second thing is there are a hundred ways to look at the same thing as you noticed already. So now you have to know all the possibilities of your camera… and of your own eyes (the possible ways to look at things). Technique once again. With a D80 and a basic but good range of lenses, I am pretty sure you have great possibilities. So once you will get a full control of the parameters such as aperture or speed or focal (I suppose you already know how these basically alter the results), play with other functionalities. You’ll find out there’s nothing (well… almost…) you can’t do with a good flash (the built-in flashes are rather limited though… if you can borrow a real flash device, try it !) And play with its features, consider deporting it (not sure it´s the right english word…), reflecting its light on a mirror or on a screen… In music you rearrange the sound, you create a vibration. Here, the key word of course is light. As in a painting.

        A flash or an external light will help you gain some control on the light “as it is” at the moment you want to shoot your picture, but of course you cannot move the sun or remove the clouds… So you already noticed that you can’t always get what you want when you are working outside. There you should consider the possibilities the light offers and try different angles. See how the light naturally reflects and “play”. Maybe you can wait for a few moments till natural light gives you the effect you are looking for. You can portray someone against the light, catch a light beam, and get a great result and feeling out of it. As you cannot move the sun, you have to move yourself. Once again, try. Look for original points of view. Climb up something, kneel or lay down on the ground, look (or don’t look) for contrasts…

        Consider trying black and white pictures. I think coloured pictures are great when the colours (either pastel, vivid…) are great. When working outside, this depends a lot, of course, on the sky and the colour of the light. Under a “white” uniform sky, colours tend to fade (picture 1). Why not… But then do not get too much faded milky sky on your picture (unless you want to create an effect from the “construction” of the picture, the framing). OK, I am getting technical already…

        When practicing with the camera, try not to limit yourself to fixed objects even if it is what you want to do in the end. Living creatures or moving things are a great source for inspiration and expression (and a practice for going around unnoticed) but they are also a good training for mastering your camera and its settings. You will of course very soon realise that you have only a few seconds – if not less ! – to shoot. Especially if you try to picture animals or sport activities (these dogs and soccer players never stay in the same place !).

        OK. We will have to talk about light, framing, symmetry / asymmetry, foreground and background, motion, contrast, colours / b&w, depth of field (of course you were right to experiment with it on that keyboard picture, that seemed the thing to do ;-)), close-ups, filters or “special effects”… but I am flooding this blog and all I have now to write is this iPad… So, for the moment and before we get into pointers, try to find 3 or 4 different subjects and shoot them from various angles and directions, trying to use all possible basic settings (aperture, speed, focal length…) until you feel you can fully foresee the result. With these digital cameras you can shoot thousands of pics and erase them without spending a penny, lucky you. And keep on posting here some of the pics you are satisfied with. As a writer and musician you have your own sensibility and considering this “early work”, I think you can make interesting things with it. My favourite is your last picture with the “flying frog”.

        All the best.

        S

        • Elias says:

          That was damn well done, Stephane!

        • Klaus, Germany , Stuttgart area says:

          Indeed, Stephane G. , a very well done explication. I’d like to put my 2 cents in:
          The Nikon D80 as well as my Canon 5D Mark II supports RAW file formats.
          Together with a suitable program – e.g. Lightroom – pictures with unique or
          irreproducible motives that are biased by over- or underexposure can be lossless redeemed in a wider range.
          So they can gracefully escape the garbage can.

          • Stephane G says:

            Vielen Dank Klaus. A Canon 5D MkII ? Boy… I’d love to get a « full frame » !

            Sure, you can rearrange many things with a good software as long as the information is on the RAW file. But I always suggest you get something as close as you want from the shot itself (with a little margin for a future reframing) and not rely too much on the image processing at the risk of loosing some details. But you surely can save many things this way.

            Good night europeans. And have a good lunch, seattleites. ;-)

      • S. Michael Scadron says:

        You should come to D.C. for the Cherry Blossoms. If you do, look us up :)

  67. Brooke says:

    Really nice shots. What kind of camera were you using, if you don’t mind my asking?

  68. Ian Tyers says:

    I’d never heard of a photo-safari ! I was expecting loads of pictures of elephants and giraffes, so this was a surprise :) Lovely photos though, not to mention diverse ! Hopefully you are getting more, and longer, periods of respite from continually thinking about Italy ?

    I don’t know why, but I keep wondering what your answer would be to one particular question ! Are you a sports fan ? A Seattle sports fan ? Mariners, Seahawks ? OK, that’s three questions ;)

    • Amanda says:

      Ian,

      The great thing about a photo safari is you can do it anywhere. Just take your camera and try to look at the world through it.

      I admit that I’m much more of a fan of playing sports than watching them, but I do enjoy the positive community spirit it inspires. When the Seahawks won the Superbowl you should have been in Seattle. It was so cool to see so many people so joyous together.

      Best,
      a

      • Jim Sullivan says:

        Just a short note, keep posting pics. These were few but sweet. BTW, this coming from a foaming at the mouth 49er fan from the Bay Area. I always opposed the Seahawks as the ‘Great Satan of the north’ but this year I was rooting for them in the Super Bowl and was happy for them and you and your family. Long may you rock!

      • Willis Coleman says:

        I thought you were at the Super Bowl with Robin Roberts. Please clarify what day it was when you saw, in person, Seattle being joyous.

        • Amanda says:

          Willis,

          I was interviewed by Robin Roberts on Friday, January 31st. The Superbowl aired on Sunday, February 2nd. I was home in time to spend the afternoon and evening with my family, and then proceeded downtown, where hundreds and hundreds of people were filling the streets of Pioneer Square, chanting, dancing, climbing on lamp posts… It was a welcome communal celebration after a personally tragic few days.

          I’m sorry you feel it necessary to question my every assertion.
          a

          • Mark says:

            I’m sorry Amanda but, osmotically speaking, Tom Brady is the greatest of all time, and it’s possible, indeed probable, that the Pats actually won the Super Bowl.

        • Rob H says:

          I see that “willis” has got his facts wrong again. “He” can hide amongst the photographs if he wants or he can put up the “evidence” he likes to refer to that never ever materialises.

          Bill Williams over at JREF described dealing with the “colpevolisti” as “whack a mole”; he pops his little head up out of a hole in the ground to make a spurious claim, has his spurious claim comprehensively refuted, (whack), then pops his head up somewhere else to make a different spurious claim – also refuted.

          When he’s run out of refutable, spurious claims, he goes back to the first hole he made and starts again with the first one.

          Now he appears to be stalking Ms Knox’s movements; six and a half years after Ms Kercher’s murder he’s tracking her, trying to catch her in a lie – pathetic.

        • Wayne says:

          The fact that Amanda allows such insulting and absurd questions from Willis on her own blog and then takes time out to answer them speaks well to her character and tolerance. Certainly more tolerant than I would be.

        • DW says:

          LOL! Caught her in another lie did you.
          You do understand I hope that you just make yourself look like a moron posting this kind of inanity.
          Would you like her to post her airline and hotel receipts, perhaps? And prove that she didn’t buy bleach at any time during the trip?
          Would be funny if it weren’t so dreadful for Amanda, to continue to spend the best years of her youth being hounded by the likes of you. Shame.

      • Ian Tyers says:

        Thanks for taking the time to reply Amanda,

        I’ve always wanted to visit Seattle, and I expect to visit your city one day. San Francisco is my favourite city in the world though, and I follow their baseball and football teams, so it was difficult for me to support the Seahawks in the Superbowl this year, because they beat the 49ers in the Championship game ;) I can imagine Seattle was a very happy city back in January and February ! Cold …… but happy :)

        I believe you like playing soccer Amanda ? Well you did when you were younger ! You looked a good player in the footage I saw :) Do you still play ? What other sports do you play ? Soccer is my sport too. I played a lot when I was younger. Actually, I think you might have got in our team at one time. You was certainly fast enough :D The team I follow here in the UK are Manchester United. You probably know they played in Seattle a couple of years ago.

        Well, I hope you have a great weekend,

        Best wishes,

        Ian

      • Thor Klamet says:

        Speaking of Seattle, I have a story. I was there in 1986 when geoduck was sold for almost nothing apparently just to get rid of it. I was in heaven; it was the best thing I had ever tasted and I ate geoduck for breakfast, lunch, and dinner (and snacks) for three days. I’m only exaggerating a little.

        I returned recently. Geoduck is a delicacy now; I couldn’t find any! Oh well, my loss is the geoduck fisherman’s gain I imagine.

  69. Kerry says:

    Love the keyboard …..but flowers …..umm …not so sure ;)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>