Friday, January 19, 2018

TJMK Main Posters live in a bat cave.

Amanda Knox didn't make up how the police abused her during the interrogation of November 6-7, 2007. Her First Memorandum which she wrote within hours of signing the 5:45 AM statement demonstrates the confusion the interrogation left her in and mentions the abusive techniques the police used. She continues documenting her recovery from that interrogation in her Second Memorandum which she wrote the next day after the interrogation, and she told her mother about it a few days later. The next month, she went over these accusations in her interview with Mignini. She didn't just suddenly come up with the idea the interrogation was abusive when she was required to testify in the calunnia portion of the trial.

The claim that Amanda's lawyers didn't believe what she said about the abusive interrogation is misleading. That assertion is not confirmed by one of her lawyers denying that he had said it. All that denial meant was that her lawyers could not express the accusation since they would have been sued for calunnia themselves if they had. Amanda's mother was sued just for repeating what Amanda had said about it.

The police claim she was not coerced into admitting she was at the cottage during the murder or accusing Patrick Lumumba for the crime, but unlike other witness questionings, the police claim they didn't tape record this one. It is likely the police don't admit having tape recorded it since it would prove they broke the law in coercing Amanda to agree with the statements they typed in Italian for her to sign.

The TJMK Main Posters are confused about what the recording they posted in this article is about. It is not the keynote address at an internatinal conference at John Jay College. Dr. Saul Kassim did speak at that conference, but the recording is a phone interview he did on the John Churley Show.

Such an interview was never intended to be a scholarly paper to be reviewed by peers. It was just Dr. Kassim explaining things for an audience of non-scholarly people. It's worth listening to this interview since it doesn't quite match up with the criticism TJMK Main Posters make of it.


Even if their criticism is of Dr. Kassim's speech to the Conference at John Jay College, it is still just TJMK's interpretation of facts and nothing Dr. Kassim was obligated to mention to the conference.

To say that Meredith Kercher was not raped is certainly using a narrow definition of rape. The police certainly thought Amanda was involved in the crime from day one, and TJMK Main Posters probably deny that she was a suspect because being a suspect gave her rights the police abused. Amanda's other two roommates did get lawyers, and Meredith's friends let Italy even though they were considered witnesses. A noise citation is not a criminal history no matter how TJMK Main Posters want it to be. The prosecution postulated more than one possible motive, but it never did prove any of them. First there was the sex game gone wrong (which was initially a cultish sex orgy later denied.) Then there was the dirty toilet motive, and last there was severe jealousy and hatred in retaliation for rejection it was never proved that Amanda even noticed.

Investigator Giobbi certainly did claim he knew Amanda was guilty from observations of Amanda's outburst of sobbing on returning to the cottage where her friend died and from what Giobbi considered inappropriate and childish behavior when Amanda did a twirl to model shoe covers she put on before going into the downstairs apartment at Giobbi's request. It's certainly TJMK Main Posters' opinion that Amanda's claim that she was with Raffaele at his apartment during the murder is untrue, but there is no evidence proving she was at the murder.

How can TJMK Main Posters say the police didn't already think she was guilty while they questioned her leading up to the interrogation on November 6-7, 2007? Giobbi claimed they didn't need her confession because they already knew she was guilty. Another probable cause he gave was that he found Amanda and Raffaele at a cafe eating pizza.

Maybe Dr. Kassim got the date of the last interrogation wrong in his address to the conference, but he didn't say that in the interview TJMK Main Posters linked in this article. It was still the last interrogation Dr. Kassim was talking about either way, and he may have rounded off the to whole hours the times that interrogation started and stopped, but the impact on Amanda of that long session from 10:30 PM to 5:45 AM was still severe. Even if TJMK Main Posters discount that Amanda was tag-team questioned by a dozen investigators, that many investigators were signed to the interrogation report. They only let her sleep after 5:45 AM, and Ficarra didn't get her that bun and tea until afternoon the next day. Amanda didn't have a lawyer, and there was no way she could leave that small interrogation room with the investigators blocking her way even when she needed to use the restroom.

The police were questioning Amanda even before the interpreter arrived and her beginner's Italian did not allow her to adequately defend herself. TJMK Main Posters can believe the police that Amanda was not repeated threatened and called a liar, but that doesn't prove the police weren't lying. The police claim there's no tape recording verifying their claims. Amanda was told Raffaele had withdrawn his alibi for her, and that was false since his statement was just as coerced as her statements were. Again, how do the police prove they didn't tell Amanda they had "hard evidence" that she was at the cottage during the murder when they claim they have no tape recording of the interrogation. Amanda has consistently said they did this from her First Memorandum forward.

It probably is untrue that the police didn't tape record the interrogation. They couldn't very well admit there is evidence of the abusive interrogation they claim never occurred. It is true the police did not provide Amanda with a lawyer. It is not likely that she would have refused a lawyer when they claimed they offered her one. How was Amanda not confessing to being an accessory to murder when the coerced statements have her saying she was there?

The coerced statements were later ruled inadmissible in the murder trial although the Supreme Court said they could be used in the calunnia part of the trial. How the court would whichkeep from being influenced in the murder trial by what it heard in the calunnia trial is inexplainable.

The coerced statements certainly got Amanda arrested even though they were proved wrong in tying Amanda to Patrick Lumumba for the murder. The police simply substituted Guede for Patrick Lumumba and continued to make up stories about irrelevant facts as though they proved something.

Supposedly these reconstructed scenarios of what the judges ruled happened were proved by how well they fit together in the overall story the prosecutors and judges wanted to tell about Amanda. The judges simply ruled that any facts that didn't fit into this neat fabrication were not real.

Concerning TJMK Main Posters' own speculated facts:

1. Raffaele didn't turn on Amanda. In his own coerced statement, he didn't say Amanda asked him to lie for her. That statement has him saying she didn't return to his apartment when he did at 9:00 PM even though Popavic testified she saw Amanda there twice before 9:00 PM. That discrepancy should be seen as due to coercion, but guilt mongers insist it's just another example of Raffaele lying. Even in making the false accusation against Patrick Lumumba, the 5:45 AM statement has Amanda saying she imagined the events at the cottage. This goes along with her claim the police demanded she imagine what would have happened if she were at the murder. It was the police who then insisted that her imagined account was what she really experienced. And Amanda was not allowed to testify at her trial, she was required to testify for the calunnia portion of that trial. Why many of the things she was asked had anything to do with the calunnia trial is a total mystery.

2. There is no doubt that the police did not have open minds about Amanda while they were questioning her. They only asked questions to find inconsistencies they could use against her. The other witnesses were asked questions about Amanda in order to incriminate her.

3. Amanda was willing to stay even before the police demanded she stay in Perugia. Whether or not other witnesses were asked to stay is irrelevant since many of them left anyhow. The main reason the police dragged her to an interrogation room on November 6-7, 2007 was because they had to get enough evidence on her before her mother arrived. The police decided Amanda's mother would convince her to go home. Of course Amanda complained about not being able to go home for Christmas and not being able to go to her aunt's home in Germany if not home to Seattle.

4. Regardless of how the questionings went before November 6-7, 2007, there's testimony and notes to indicate what the police thought about Amanda's guilt. Amanda also has anadoctal examples of how critical the police were of her during that period.

5. It's only the coerced 1:45 AM and 5:45 AM statements that have Amanda claiming she went out the night Meredith died. In her First Memorandum, Amanda only mentions the memory of going to the murder as being unreal and unreliable compared to being with Raffaele at his apartment during the same period of time. The courts ignoring that is a lie.

6. Amanda never said the interrogation of November 6, 2007 started at 10:00 PM. It started about 10:30 PM. It had to have gone until 5:45 AM since that was when the police had her sign the second statement, but since the prosecution used her First Memorandum as evidence, the time she was detained for questioning has to include until 2:00 PM November 7, 2007.

7. It's debateable whether Ficarra didn't plan the interrogation of Amanda on November 6-7, 2007. She had the investigators collected to do it, and there is evidence the police wanted to arrest Amanda before her mother would convince her to leave Italy. But the real question remains, what difference did it make whether the she was told to leave and she said she didn't want to? The interrogation that insued was still abusive and she was coerced into signing statements that incriminated her.

8. There is no proof that Amanda was advised not to speak any further after being coerced into signing the 1:45 AM statement. There's not even anything with her signature on it to that effect. There's still no tape recording available to prove anything the police claim. The real question is what were the police talking to Amanda about between 1:45 AM? It's hardly likely they didn't ask her anything since they had a substantially different statement typed in Italian for her to sign at 5:45 AM. And it's this statement that has Amanda saying she imagined the events at the murder. It also has her saying she heard Meredith scream but then has her say she couldn't remember hearing Meredith scream. That certainly sounds like contradictory question and answering.

9. Amanda didn't type the statements they had her sign. The interpreter admitted in testimony that Amanda couldn't understand those statements. No matter how few officers were mentioned in those coerced statements, it doesn't prove that Amanda wasn't tag team questioned by a dozen investigators as she says she was.

10. Amanda only confirmed that she was not hit while writing her First Memorandum in which she did confirm she was hit in the head during the interrogation. Amanda only confirmed that she was given a bun and tea in the afternoon after the interrogation. She was not helped to sleep at all after the interrogation. She had to pull together two chairs to sleep on herself. What difference does it make that nobody told her she couldn't have a restroom break when they blocked her leaving the room to do so?

11. Amanda didn't write her First Memorandum in Italian. Whether Amanda wrote some simple notes in Italian is irrelevant. Her interpreter during the early morning of November 7, 2007 considered herself a "mediator" rather than a neutral interpreter. The "mediator" was trying to get Amanda to remember things she never experienced in real life.

12. There is still no tape recording of the November 6-7, 2007 interrogation to prove Amanda was not threatened or called a liar for disagreeing with what the police wanted her to say. There is no way that listing a few men who knew Meredith could last from 10:30 PM until 1:45 AM. So the police had to be arguing with her about what they finally coerced her to sign. There is absolutely no reason Amanda would have expected her "See you later" text message to mean what the police claimed she spontaneously agreed it meant. It must have taken a great deal of effort for them to even explain what they intended her to mean by it.

The TJMK Main Posters' contention that Amanda's experiences that she talks about are a blood money tree is just their imagination. it should be noted that the TJMK Main Posters consider this article is a 100% rebuttal to her ability to express what happened to her. It will be interesting to note what they say when that has no effect.

Of course TJMK Main Posters defeat their own purpose. They keep the controversy about Amanda alive so that there will be plenty of organizations interested in hearing her speak.

Sunday, January 14, 2018

James Raper's disinformation

It of course is the right of the defense to question evidence presented in trial. Whether James Raper thinks that's disinformation is irrelevant.

The reason for Raffaele's kitchen knife being collected as the murder weapon had nothing to do with the knife inprint on the bed. The imprint is much smaller than the kitchen knife. Apparently, Mr. Raper considers the imprint of the handle to be part of the blade. The officer choosing the kitchen knife chose it because it was big and looked like it had been cleaned recently. It turned out that it still had starch on it that had not been cleaned off.

The question about the result from DNA testing of the sample taken from Raffaele's kitchen knife is not whether it matches Meredith's profile well enough, but whether that result is reliable in proving her DNA was actually on that knife.

The sample was LCN meaning it was low count. In order to test it, the number of DNA units had to be amplified meaning that the number of units had to be increased. This is done with some sort of chemical manipulation that nobody ever explains but just seems to be a given.

Mr. Raper even admits that Stefanoni didn't do biological or blood tests. So we don't know for sure if there really was anything there to be applified to begin with. He admits that international guidelines recommend a repetition of the amplification be done to detect stutter land allele drop out (distortions,) but he discounts such considerations as being merely a defense argument.

But what he cannot get around is that a minute amount of Meredith's DNA surviving from tests previously done with the same equipment could have been enlarged to become a false result from the sample taken from Raffaele's kitchen knife.

Without the second enlargement to be tested, there is no way to compare results to see if the confirm each other. And there is also no confirmation that the result came from biological or blood sources.

So Mr. Raper falls back on Article 360 of the Criminal Procedure Code as though a legal permission to use the results of an LCN sample amplified only once gives credance to its reliability. How does a law determine scientific acceptability?

So how could Stefanoni have proved there was no contamination in that enlargement? She could have first done an enlargement without any sample present. Mr. Raper claims these "negative controls" had been done, but there was no documentation of the result for this. Mr. Raper wants us to believe it just wasn't attached to Stefanoni's report. So why couldn't she produce it when it was requested?

That the independent expert Carla Vecciotti testified that 6 days was sufficient time to avoid lab contamination doesn't prove it didn't happen anyhow. Afterall, supposedly DNA can last 46 days without disappearing.

However convincing Mr. Raper finds the arguments that Raffaele's kitchen knife produced the wounds on Meredith's neck, the arguments that Stefanoni's contrived results that Meredith's DNA were found on that knife are equally unconvincing. And Mr. Raper cannot claim that blood was found on that knife since Stefanoni didn't do that test.

Again with the bra clasp sample, the match of the profile is not what is in question. What's questionable is whether handling of the bra clasp caused the sample to be contaminated.

Regardless of where the bra clasp was found, it was collected 46 days later after being kicked about a yard away under a rug. The investigators used dirty gloves and shoe covers when collecting it and passed it from one to another before putting it into the evidence bag. This handling is documented in a video the police themselves made of the handling.

For no particularly good reason, Mr. Raper claims it's the burden of the defense to explain where the contamination came from and got on the bra clasp. It's the prosecution's burden to prove the evidence it uses is reliable. If the prosecution cannot prove contamination did not occur, the evidence is not reliable.

It's ridiculous for Mr. Raper to expect the defense to identify the exact invisible deposit of Raffaele's DNA outside Meredith's room and show the exact process by which that DNA was transferred from there into Meredith's room and onto the bra clasp.

The police didn't swab every single bit of surface in that cottage. However small the possibility that a deposit of Raffaele's DNA they didn't recover could have adhered to a dirty glove or shoe cover and have been transferred into Meredith's room to re-adhere to the bra clasp, the police cannot prove it didn't happen.

And Raffaele had been in that cottage visiting Amanda before the murder and when he came with her after the murder. So there was indeed the possibility of his DNA depositing there outside Meredith's room.

It's true that the smaller the LCN sample is, the more a problem contamination becomes. But there is no reason contamination can only be a LCN sample. There is no reason contamination cannot contain a full profile. And there is no reason touch contamination is necessary when it's dust that carries it. Dust adheres to plenty of things.

Friday, December 22, 2017

KrissyG's Cracked Fairytales, Part 1

KrissyG starts out with a lie about what Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollectio said to each other while waiting at the cottage for the police to come. KrissyG has no way to know they were discussing what to say to the police, but she asserts it anyhow.

By cracks and fissures KrissyG must mean differences between what Amanda and Raffaele said. Just why those differences have any significance is a mystery she makes up explanations for.

And yet she claims that Raffaele claimed after three days that Amanda made him lie. That's not what the statement the police coerced him to sign on November 6, 2007 actually said. He only claimed that she had convinced him of "her version" of what happened. Even so, coerced statement doesn't explain what it was about his earlier statements that were rubbish. The police forgot to tell him that.

Like so many guilt mongers, KrissyG wants to be able to label things about Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito as lies regardless of content. While there are interesting correlations in the guide to liars that she links to, those correlations could also indicate an exasperated person trying to express replies so that they cannot be manipulated by cyber bullies.

It doesn't matter that Amanda said they left the cottage at AROUND 5:00 PM nad Raffaele said they left AROUND 5:30 PM. Neither time was exact, but they left the cottage anyhow. It doesn't matter that Amanda didn't mention going to Raffaele's apartment by way of the center of town as Raffaele said. They still ended up at his apartment.

Amanda was not writing according to a set script as KrissyG wants to believe. Amanda was writing according to how she remembered things. Contrary to KrissyG, Amanda sometimes remembered things differently as in her email to her friends and family. This is normal for most people since things they remember change significance from one time to another.

KrissyG wants to use the statement Raffaele was coerced by the police to sign as his true expression of what happened instead of what Amanda told him, but the timeline of that coerced statement is in violation of Jovana Popovic's testimony about seeing Amanda at Raffaele's apartment at 6:00 PM and 8:40 PM. According to the coerced statement, Raffaele doesn't get to his apartment until 9:00 PM and Amanda doesn't get there until 1:00 AM the next morning.

KrissyG claimed that Raffaele saying he didn't remember what they did in town before going on to his apartment raises a big flag because he didn't simply say he didn't know. Why does it matter what they did in town? The important thing is that they got to his apartment where Jovana Popovic saw Amanda.

In spite of Raffaele changing the time leaving the cottage from AROUND 5:30 PM in his November 2nd questioning to between 5:30 PM to 6:00 PM in his first written statement, KrissyG insists that Raffaele has a script he's sticking to. What important thing could he be hiding about going home?

And also, if Raffaele were sticking to a script in his November 7th diary entry as KrissyG says, it must be the script the police typed for him to sign on November 6th. He wrote in his diary the same mistaken 8 to 8:30 PM for when he and Amanda got back to his apartment.

Of course KrissyG wants it to be fact that Raffaele saying he had not intention of going back outside that night was a lie. She gives as her reason that he is lying his saying the reason he didn't want to go out that night was that it was cold. Calling that reason an "embellishment" doesn't make it false. It was cold that night.

Why would Raffaele know the police would confiscate his diary to read it? KrissyG assumes he wrote his diary entries to lie to the police because she wants to say he's guilty. As he is innocent, he would have no expectation the police would behave that way.

KrissyG wants to believe that Amanda's letter to her lawyers would include lies. Why would she do that? KrissyG "proves" Amanda to be a liar because she wrote that she took off her shoes. It is a fact irrelevant to a lot of things,but maybe not to Amanda's story. Besides, it is the same irrelevant facts that mentioned in one place the absense of which in another place guilt mongers call lies.

KrissyG wants to prove Amanda a liar by the list in her diary of things Amanda and Raffaele did on November 1st. KrissyG suggests that Amanda was faking amnesia back on November 6th because she could remember these things on November 27th. It wasn't amnesia that Amanda was suffering from, but the confusion caused by the brainwashing the police used on her.

This confusion is evident in Amanda's First and Second Memorandum which demonstrated her struggle to regain true memories. That she could remember things well by November 27th is still an accomplishment, but hardly a reason to call her a liar. And of course KrissyG still criticized her for her consistency in leaving out what Raffaele said about going through the center of town on the way to his apartment.

KrissyG makes a big deal about Amanda finishing that list with the statement "It's that simple." KrissyG claims that's an indicator that Amanda I a liar, but that statement really led to her wondering why her lawyers didn't want her to express this simple list of activities. What KrissyG cannot explain is who Amanda is lying to writing in her own diary. And of course there was nothing false about that list anyhow.

It's terribly confusing that the reason Amanda never mentioned the trip through the center of town on their way to Raffaele's apartment was that Raffaele had not remembered why they went that way when he mentioned it to the police. Obviously the police were searching for things to trip Raffaele in his account, and it was totally irrelevant why they went through the center of town. Of course, KrissyG likes bizarre and irrelevant things if they can be used to call Amanda a liar. Just look at her opinion about Amanda saying she took off her shoes.

KrissyG gives no possible deceptive purpose for Amanda to leave out of her account the route by which she had Raffaele returned to his apartment, but KrissyG still calls it a lie.

Amélie In her book Amanda very definitely used a conversation with Raffaele about the movie Amélie as an introduction to their seeing it the night of November 1st. Maybe they really had that conversation on October 28th, but it would only have made her book difficult to understand separating the two events just for the sake of a timeline. There was absolutely no deceptive purpose in Amanda writing it this way.

Since Jovana Popovic saw Amanda at Raffaele's apartment at 6:00 PM, there is no way the walk from the cottage to his apartment took two to five hours as KrissyG claims. KrissyG just wants to speculate something awful.

That Amanda and Raffaele turned off their phones is no more proof either of them left his apartment than Amanda's not mentioning the route they took to his apartment proves she didn't go there with him. How does KrissyG explain Jovana Popovic's testimony that Amanda was there at 6:00 PM?

KrissyG has not demonstrated any serious anomolies in Amanda's and Raffaele's stories that would justAmélie ify the treatment they got on the night of November 5-6th. She cannot explain why the police focused on Amanda from the very first day. Raffaele is right that the only reason the police focused on him was because he is Amanda's alibi. They had to cause that alibi to fail.

How did KrissyG expect Amanda to be stalking Meredith when Jovana Popovic saw Amanda at Raffaele's apartment at 6 PM and again at 8:40 PM when Meredith got home? So KrissyG is skeptical about Popovic's testimony? What possible reason would Popovic have for lying?

Why would KrissyG doubt that Amanda and Raffaele ate before the murder? Or that the kitchen sink pipes leaked before the murder? What is it about the murder that would have delayed their hunger or the pipe's weakness?

I've never seen the movie Amélie as an alibi. Amanda and Raffaele were each other's alibi. It never occurred to either of them that the movie they watched would be needed as an alibi.

KrissyG's Cracked Fairytales, Part 2

In this Part 2 of KrissyG's Cracked Fairytales she analyzes Amanda Knox's deposition to the police taken on November 2, 2007. KrissyG continues to use the guide to liars that she used in Part 1. She still focuses on showing existentially that AmandaKnox is a liar.

KrissyG does a remarkable slight of word in talking about how the police investigated Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. She claims the police didn't "zoom in" on Amanda and Raffaele because they were interviewing many other witnesses.

What's deceptive about that claim is that the police were asking those other witnesses about Amanda and Raffaele, and the police were quite frank in their immediate assumption that Amanda in particular was involved with the murder. And while KrissyG denies that the police focused their investigation on Raffaele, she referenced unproved ties to the mafia as being the reason.

So certainly, the police pretended that Amanda and Raffaele were merely witnesses, but they harbored suspicion of them all along. Investigator Edgardo Giobbi had his ridiculous three reasons to believe her guilt even before the interrogation of November 5-6th.

The only reason the police looked beyond Amanda and Raffaele for a suspect was because they had mistaken threads found in Meredith's left hand for hair from a black man. The police didn't even wait for the forensic report before looking for a black man to use for tying Amanda to the murder.

Of course KrissyG wants to use this deposition of November 2nd to limit what Amanda can claim later. The hypocrisy of that is that KrissyG wants to hold Amanda responsible for the November 5-6th statements that contradict everything that came before. Those contradictions should indicate the November 5-6th statements were coerced, but guilt mongers want to consider them truth.

KrissyG jumps to a lot of conclusions about what Amanda would or would not think at the time events unfolded. And KrissyG makes big distinctions about how Amanda worded things without acknowledging that Amanda was expressing these things after the events.

KrissyG claims we only have Amanda's word for it that the front door was open when she arrived at the cottage. That's to emphasize that KrissyG has already decided Amanda was lying. KrissyG reinforces her assertion by asking the reader to imagine that Amanda's real purpose of coming home was to "tidy up." And from this flimsy start, she concludes that Amanda had to leave the door unlocked to distance herself from the murder. Of course it takes a key to lock the door, and Guede must have found Meredith's key in order to leave by that door. But would Guede know the door had to be locked to keep it shut? Would Guede care about locking it on his way out? He would lock Meredith's room door to delay discovery of the body while he was escaping, but why would he take time to lock the front door? Meredith's key was never found.

The police asked Amanda for this statement because Meredith had just been found murdered behind a lock door. It's not as though she still didn't know the door was locked. So that's why she mentioned that she hadn't checked to see if doors were locked. It wouldn't have occurred to her at the time to check, but it would occur to her that the police would wonder if she had checked.

The trip to Gubbio turned into a non-event when the circumstances at the cottage took precedent. KrissyG can hardly expect Amanda and Raffaele to continue with their plans for the day trip to Gubbio when there was a break-in at the cottage and Meredith turns up murdered. But KrissyG wants to consider plans not fulfilled as an indicator Amanda is a liar.

KrissyG assumes that Amanda is merely acting innocent in her account of what happened. KrissyG pretends that Amanda claims what she did from what Amanda would imagine an innocent person would do. Actually, Amanda reacted to what she discovered at the cottage according to her own expectations instead KrissyG's expectation. If she had been guilty, she would have taken a change of clothes with her to Raffaele's apartment, and they would have gone straight to Gubbio leaving someone else to find Meredith's body.

KrissyG sees something nefarious in the open front door. Amanda saw that someone had neglected to lock it to keep it from opening on its own. KrissyG sees Meredith's locked door as a compelling mystery. Amanda only saw that the door was shut and refrained from invading her roommate's privacy. KrissyG just imagines that Amanda was delaying the acknowledgement of Meredith's dead body, but of course KrissyG has already decided that Amanda killed Meredith.

Amanda didn't make any claims about knowing or not knowing where her roommates would be that weekend. She just wrote in her book that Filomena told her on the phone after Amanda had been to the cottage. Even if Amanda had thought all of her roommates had left for the weekend, why wouldn't she wonder if one of them had come back on finding the front door open. It was natural for her to call out to them on entering since they were not expecting her, but there was no reason for her to suspect anything when there was absolute quiet that followed. There was no reason to go knocking on Meredith's door if she didn't answer. And seriously, what difference does it make that Amanda called to each roommate by name rather than just calling, "Hello! Anyone home?" as KrissyG preferred?

The truth is that KrissyG wants to believe that Amanda didn't want to admit knowing Meredith had been the only one there. KrissyG wants to assert that Amanda already knew what to expect at the cottage. KrissyG wants to portray Amanda as guilty for not knocking on Meredith's door and trying to open it, but Amanda had no reason to think Meredith was home. Amanda is not sure what to think about what she found at the cottage even after she left to go back to Raffaele's apartment. She had no reason to phone him from the cottage.

KrissyG of course is still pretending that Amanda is only imagining herself innocent. KrissyG wants to believe Amanda made up an excuse that a roommate had left the front door unlocked (thereby allowing it to open.) It would never occur to Amanda that someone other than her roommates had been there to leave the front door that way, but to KrissyG, Amanda has to explain why that door was allowed to open. KrissyG thinks Amanda's speculation as to that reason is a "precluding." What does Amanda's assumption one of her roommates went on a quick errand nearby "preclude?" KrissyG must be trying to say Amanda lied.

KrissyG is only speculating that Amanda was really declaring Meredith's life blood disgusting instead of the menstrual blood Amanda thought it was. Of course KrissyG has already decided that anything Amanda says is a lie. And of course Amanda didn't know whose menstrual blood it might have been. Did krissyG expect Amanda to use list the names of all three of her roommates instead of saying "some girl?" KrissyG is being ridiculous in her attempt to imply Amanda lied.

KrissyG thinks the bathmat shuffle was a story that Amanda made up later  when talking to her lawyers, but it doesn't appear in her book. So whenever Amanda said something about it, she must have realized she was remembering it from an earlier time. Why would privileged communication between Amanda and her lawyers be a lie? Who was she trying to deceive and for what purpose?

Also, since the footprints in the hall were only "compatible" with her footprints, the police didn't prove that those footprints were hers rather that those of one of her roommates whose footprint were likely just as compatible. But it's still no lie that if they were Amanda's footprints, they could have gotten there after she showered that morning.

KrissyG calling Amanda a liar doesn't make her lying when she said she didn't flush the toilet because it was disgusting. Amanda would indeed have a complex reaction to finding the unflushed toilet since she had been lectured to about cleaning the toilet after using it. Whether it was cleaning or flushing it, it was strange that this had not been done, and she would have had reason to leave it as it was. Whoever had used that toilet was responsible for it since they had held her responsible for when she used a toilet.

It would occur to her that it could be someone other than her roommates who left the toilet that way, but that was probably after she left the cottage and started thinking about it some more. But whenever she thought it was an intruder's, she would have wondered what it meant. Of course KrissyG has to over-analyze Amanda's impulsive reaction to make it seem a lie. Indeed, KrissyG latches on to Amanda calling it "disgusting" as proof that she is a liar. The same as with calling the possible minstrual blood "disgusting." KrissyG's conclusion is strange since seen the way Amanda saw them, they would be disgusting.

Why does KrissyG think it was sarcastic of Amanda to reply that she didn't know what time things happened? What kind of obsession with time does KrissyG have? KrissyG is just implying lies where there are not lies. Not everyone is constantly looking at the clock, and not many are going to remember later what time it was when they did look. That she doesn't remember exactly what time the pipe of the kitchen sink broke would not keep her from knowing it was the next morning that she brought the mop back to Raffaele's apartment. Of course KrissyG wants it to seem that Amanda had to have gone to the cottage during the murder to get the mop.

KrissyG wants to imply a lie with Amanda's use of the word "immediately." Whether Amanda meant immediately after breakfast or was clarifying that she told Raffaele when she first got to his apartment, she still told him. It's true that Amanda was unsure of what she saw at the cottage meant, but that doesn't make her "ditzy." KrissyG has the advantage of perfect hindsight that Amanda didn't have. Amanda had not discovered the broken-in window yet. That Amanda wanted to see what Raffaele thought doesn't make her a liar.

The assumption that one of her roommates went on a quick errand somewhere close was reason enough to leave the front door unlocked in case that roommate didn't have her key. The accumulation of strange things at the cottage may have been disturbing, but there was no reason for her to think there had been a crime until she came back with Raffaele and saw the broken-in window. Amanda didn't have the advantage of perfect hindsight that KrissyG has.

It is true that Filomena and Laura usually used the bathroom closest to their room. But if one of them were already using that bathroom, wouldn't the other use the small bathroom if needed? Whose-ever menstrual blood would still be disturbing since that's what Amanda thought it was.

Amanda does seem to emphasize that she called Filomena. She mentions calling Filomena before saying how many times she called Meredith's phones. Amanda actually did call Meredith's English phone letting it ring 16 seconds before she called Filomena. Then after calling Filomena, she called Meredith's Italian phone getting an out of service message and then she called Meredith's English phone again in case Meredith was able to answer it at that time. She didn't wait as long that time because she had already tried it before.

KrissyG wants to see lies in Amanda saying first called Filomena and then called Meredith after calling Filomena. There was no possible purpose for such a deception. Amanda gained nothing by these mistakes. Probably Amanda only meant that she called Filomena as the lessee of record before trying to call Laura. And Amanda did try each of Meredith's phones after talking to Filomena whether "dutifully" or not. Nobody told her to call Meredith the first time before calling Filomena. Raffaele only suggested she call one of her roommates and not Meredith in particular.

How does KrissyG know Amanda and Raffaele didn't get to the cottage until 12:35 PM? However long it took them to get from Raffaele's apartment to the cottage, they checked the cottage discovering the broken-in window and the locked door. Amanda went to the apartment below to see if the boys there knew anything. She tried to look in Meredith's window from the bathroom terrace. Raffaele tried to break down Meredith's door. Raffaele called his sister. Raffaele called the Carabinieri, and he and Amanda went outside to wait for the Carabinieri where the Postal Police found them. How could they do all of that in 10 minutes?

Of course it has been proved that the Postal Police arrived later than they originally claimed. The time-stamp of the parking lot security camera showed when they arrived. The time-stamp was slow, and the Postal Police had to walk back from where they eventually parked.


KrissyG is mistaken that Amanda called both of Meredith's phones before calling Filomena, but Amanda did call Meredith's English phone before calling Filomena. Yet, KrissyG claims Filomena had to tell her to make the call Amanda had already done. Whose clear lie is that? And Filomena said that she got the same out of service message when trying to call Meredith's Italian phone that Amanda got. So what difference does the short ring time make on that attempt. Also, there was no reason to continue waiting on the second attempt at calling Meredith's English phone. if Meredith was still unable to answer the phone after 16 seconds of its ringing the first time, she certainly could have figured out Amanda had called her twice in order to call her back.

KrissyG seems mystified that Amanda would choose to check Filomena's and Laura's room before checking Meredith's. Amanda was merely checking the rooms nearest the front door through which she entered before going further into the apartment to reach Meredith's door. Of course with perfect hindsight KrissyG is able to see that checking Meredith's door would be a priority, but all Amanda knew was that Meredith hadn't answered her phones.

KrissyG got wrong what Raffaele said about Filomena's door. He found Filomena's door slightly ajar and pushed it open. Of course KrissyG is very eager to claim Amanda lied about something although what purpose such a deception could serve is a mystery.

KrissyG claims that Amanda must have dressed in the dark as there was little natural light in her room. But there was a window, and it was almost noon. So what was the problem? KrissyG just wants to imply that Amanda had something to hide about her lamp. That it was found in Meredith's room doesn't prove that Amanda or Raffaele put it there.

KrissyG makes a big deal out of how Amanda wouldn't enter Filomena's and Laura's room as though not wanting to disturb a crime scene were an incriminating thing. Amanda had seen Filomena's broken-in window. So she would consider the cottage a crime scene. It's perfectly understandable that Amanda would expect the police to want to know if she went into those rooms.

KrissyG is manipulating the meaning of the verb "to contact." All it means is to make a connection. When Amanda answered Filomena's phone call, Amanda made contact with Filomena. Of course KrissyG wants to find another lie to attribute to Amanda, but what difference does it make who called whom since what was important was that Amanda told Filomena about the broken window.

KrissyG wants to stick Amanda with a lie that she said Raffaele called his sister before Amanda called Filomena. Amanda didn't say that. She said that after she returned from trying to find the guys downstairs, Raffaele decided to call his sister. Amanda didn't say when he called his sister, and Amanda only claimed that in the meantime, she called Filomena. That's not saying anything definite, but KrissyG wants to accuse Amanda of lying even if the timing doesn't make any difference.

KrissyG manipulates quotes from Amanda's statement to make it look like Raffaele called his sister after the Postal Police arrived. She splits a paragraph to put the previous paragraph in between the two parts of the split paragraph. Even if KrissyG alleges that Amanda was lying, that's a false quote of what Amanda said to the police.

KrissyG thinks it's interesting that Amanda forgot to mention in her statement that she called her mother just before Luca Altieri kicked open the door at 1:05 PM. Is this the reason guilter mongers claim Amanda was lying when she later told her mother she couldn't remember that phone call? Amanda called her mother many times that morning. Why purpose would that omission serve? KrissyG can imply that it a deliberate omission, but how does she prove it? Besides the omission makes no difference.

It's not clear at all what KrissyG was trying to imply with the "Additionallys" she quoted. The deposition labeled them as "When asked she responds." Maybe KrissyG was implying that police interest in asking her about these things was incriminating. As in any answer can and will be used against her.

Of course Amanda tried to "consolidate" into her email to family and friends what she had told the police. She said in that email that it was her account and it would be natural that she would be trying to bring into focus what she knew in case it was of any use to the police. It's already apparent KrissyG wants to portray Amanda as a liar, and whether liars do commonly work out a "script" for keeping track of their lies is not proof that that was what Amanda was doing.

Monday, December 11, 2017

The Machine ignores Professor Duncan's real subject

Why doesn't The Machine of TJMK just read the paper by Professor Martha Grace Duncan to find out what it's about instead of asking what it was? The Machine grinds out its own review without actually talking about what Professor Duncan said.

The Machine of TJMK is so completely obsessed with how Amanda Knox was convicted that it cannot see that Professor Duncan was analyzing why Amanda was convicted.

Of course The Machine doesn't lose a chance to say that Professor Duncan misrepresented the Marasca Report of the Fifth Chamber of the Supreme Court. Guilters contend that report admits Amanda is guilty even while acquitting her. So The Machine has to complain about Professor Duncan not mentioning the guilt they think she should be talking about.

The only thing The Machine quoted from Professor Duncan's paper was one item from her summary of the case:

“March 29, 2015: The Supreme Court of Cassation overturns the murder convictions of Amanda and Raffaele and drops all charges against them.”

It wasn't as though Professor Duncan wouldn't write about the Calunnia Conviction later, but she just didn't need to comment on it at that point.

These following allegations weren't what Professor Duncan was interested in detailing either:

1. Multiple attackers

2. Amanda Knox's presence at the murder

3. Washing Meredith'f blood off

4. Lies told to the police

5. Accusing Lumumba to avoid Guede's retaliation

6. Staging of the break-in

So concluding that Professor Duncan misrepresented the Supreme Court is erroneous. She wasn't talking about any of that. She analyzed how Amanda Knox's behavior affected how the police and the courts treated her. There is already plenty written about what The Machine of the TJMK wants emphasized. It is interesting that Professor Duncan pulls together all this information about the way Amanda's behavior influenced those who claimed she is guilty.

That's probably why Professor Duncan used the ungangly title "WHAT NOT TO DO WHEN YOUR ROOMMATE IS MURDERED IN iTALY: AMANDA KNOX, HER "STRANGE" BEHAVIOR, AND THE ITALIAN LEGAL SYSTEM" for her paper. It was to force attention about what she was really discussing, but The Machine of TJMK still managed to ignore it.

Professor Duncan provided an abstract of what she was going to say. She outlined it with the table of contents, and she carefully documented her sources. She provided a complete discussion of how prejudices were activated by Amanda's behavior, and discussed how the Italian media and judicial system played into the convictions.

And yet The Machine of TJMK characterized Professor Duncan as incompetent and dishonest saying it was unforgivable that she didn't mention what it thought was important.

Monday, December 4, 2017

Ms. Houle's PR issues with Professor Duncan

Why is Liz Houle still harping on the PR firm Gogerty Merriott? That company is no longer in business. So whatever PR campaign it may have been conducting, it's no longer active. That doesn't stop Ms. Houle from claiming Professor Martha Grace Duncan's paper on "What Not to Do When Your Roommate Is Murdered in Italy: Amanda Knox, Her ‘Strange’ Behavior, and the Italian Legal System" isn't the perpetuation of the PR campaign that guilters like her have complained about for years.

As expected, Ms. Houle declares the paper biased because it's not a study in the guilt Ms. Houle proclaims for Amanda Knox. Ms. Houle doesn't comment on the legal analysis Professor Duncan expresses, but rather enumerates an number of stock claims put forth by guilters to signify Amanda is guilty.

Supposedly, Amanda's failure to flush the toilet after using it is passive aggressiveness against Meredith. All we know about that is that Meredith had asked Amanda to use a brush to clean the toilet since flushing it was not enough.

Meredith may have told her friends that Amanda was in the habit of bringing home men she had met, but there doesn't seem to be that many as Meredith's friends have tried to make out there were.

And the conversation where Amanda commented on having met Giacomo shows that Meredith was hostile about what Amanda said and not the other way around.

Meredith's friends seemed to think that Meredith talked about Amanda behind her back, but nobody remembers anything that Amanda said about derogatory about Meredith. If Amanda and Meredith weren't friends, it wasn't Amanda who knew about it. So why does it irk Meredith's friends that Amanda called Meredith her friend?

It's ridiculous to criticize Amanda for saying she discovered Meredith murdered. Amanda was the one who called attention to the peculiar clues in the cottage leading to the discovery of Meredith's body.

Amanda didn't need an autopsy to hear what Luca Altieri told her and Raffaele about the murder room on the way to the police station.

Amanda's behavior in the police station was irrelevant to guilt of Meredith's murder. And since she knew what Mr. Altieri said, she would know Meredith's throat was slashed. Amanda didn't know that Meredith had suffocated on her own blood. So it was reasonable for her to think Meredith died slowly and painfully from loss of blood. Her expression of this was in anger over whoever the killer was doing it.

It's not clear how any of this puts her and Raffaele together with Guede murdering Meredith. They didn't know Guede, and Guede had never even met Raffaele.

The police didn't have authority to order Amanda as a witness to remain in Perugia. Certainly other witnesses did leave Perugia. It's because Amanda's mother was coming that the police decided to pressure Amanda into confessing so that they could arrest her. They feared her mother would convince Amanda to come home in spite of her intent to stay to help find Meredith's killer.

Amanda went to the police station with Raffaele because she was afraid the killer might come back to kill her also. She was too afraid to be alone or return to Raffaele's apartment alone. She only did the yoga because a police officer she was talking to asked her to demonstrate it. This of course is totally irrelevant to guilt or innocence.

That policeman was already asking her questions about the murder by 11:00 PM when Ficarro insisted she had to go to an interrogation room. The interrogation didn't stop at 1:45 AM when they had her sign the first statement they had typed in Italian. This statement was coerced out her by blocking her from leaving the interrogation room and intimidating her with screamed accusations and threats. The police conveniently ran out of tape for recording the interview or so they say. The result is the same in that they have no proof they are telling the truth as to how voluntary that statement or the one at 5:45 AM were.

The police already were expecting a black man was involved since they had mistakened thread found in Meredith's left had for a black man's hair. They latched onto Amanda's text message reply to Patrick as a way to tie her to a black man they had her incriminate. It was their lie to suit their purposes. They didn't release Patrick until they had the black man Guede to take his place tying her to the crime.

Amanda did not make millions of dollars from Meredith's murder. Her book was about her own experiences with the Italian Judiciary.

Guilters like Ms. Houle criticize Amanda for saying she was interrogated for 53 hours while not answering questions for all of that time. But she was detained for questiioning that long.

I do expect Professor Duncan's paper to be interesting. It can be viewed or downloaded at:

Friday, November 24, 2017

Ms. Houle's exaggeration of public relations

 Liz Houle makes dubious claims about public relations campaigns helping convicts avoid punishment. There's no indication that PR helped the "West Memphis Three" avoid punishment since they were still convicted. The plea deal that allowed them to confess to lesser crimes was brought about by how much the police bungled the case rather than complaints they were innocent.

Cyntoia Brown should never have been tried for defending herself against a sex slaver. Even if she shot the man who had bought her, use of overwhelming force was justified by her fear of what he would have done to her if she had failed to incapacitate him. Ms. Brown was not trained in the use of force. So she should not be expected to know what is excessive force.

There is no way Ms. Houle can prove her allegations of PR interference with the Italian Judiciary system. The PR firm her father hired was capable of controlling media access to her family, but the American public's support for her cause was totally a grass-roots phenomenon. That support is not evidence of a behind-the-scenes conspiracy to subvert the media or justice. People supported Amanda because she is innocent.