Pages

Monday, December 11, 2017

The Machine ignores Professor Duncan's real subject

http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/why_knox_groupies_really_should_stop_thinking/

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

https://truecrimespodcasts.com/2017/12/03/amanda-knox-public-relations-points-published-in-college-paper/

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.
See https://bourgoisviews.blogspot.com/2017/04/53-hours-detained.html

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

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3073208

Friday, November 24, 2017

Ms. Houle's exaggeration of public relations

https://truecrimespodcasts.com/2017/11/24/how-public-relations-helps-convicts-get-away-with-murder/

 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.

Sunday, November 19, 2017

Chimera's Questionable Allusions #02- Her own proofs

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/knox_v_knox_how_she_herself_provides_proofs_of_lies_2/

Chimera seems to think that the calunnia conviction against Amanda Knox will still have any meaning when the ECHR declares her rights were abused during the interrogation that caused her to sign the accusation against Patrick Lamumuba. Even if Italy doesn't nulify the conviction, Italy will be made a laughing stock for its use of coercion to get the evidence used for that conviction. Without the ECHR's approval, Patrick Lumumba will not be able to collect the reward the trial court promised him.

There really is no reason for Amanda to ask for a retrial of the calunnia conviction. It will be unenforceable, but Chimera goes on to claim Amanda provided the evidence against herself anyhow.

1. Chimera makes a common guilter mistake. She equates Amanda's First Memorandum with the statements Amanda was coerced into signing at 1:45 AM and 5:45 AM. It really doesn't matter that Amanda voluntarily wrote and delivered that First Memorandum to Ficarro. It doesn't make the previous two statements voluntary in the least.

It is precisely because Amanda was unsure that anything in the 1:45 AM and 5:45 AM statements were true that she wrote her First Memorandum to warn the police that those previous statements were unreal and unreliable. In that First Memorandum Amanda compared the memory of being with Patrick Lamumba at the murder with her memory of being with Raffaele in his apartment during the same period of time. Of course she couldn't be in two places at the same time, and her confusion from the interrogation indicates it was not the statements the police had her sign that were true.

Chimera's attempt to make the 1:45 AM and 5:45 AM statments seem clear-cut fails spectacularly. Both statements have Amanda expressing confusion and the 5:45 AM statement has her both saying she heard Meredith scream and doesn't remember hearing the scream. The styles of the two statements differ from each other as well as from Amanda's First Memorandum, but her First Memorandum and her Second Memorandum have similar style. It shows that someone else wrote the police statements for her to sign.

As for why the police had to have her accuse Patrick Lumumba, the police were under the mistaken impression that hair from a black man were found in Meredith's left hand. So they had to have Amanda accuse a black man to tie her to the case with. As it turned out, the black man's hair turned out to be merely thread. And it wasn't blond hair either.

2. Chimera thinks that Amanda writing that she had unintentionally misled the police about Patrick is different from her testimony claiming the police had pressured into naming Patrick. Amanda may have been questioned about her First Memorandum which is what Chimera refers to as the third statement, but the two quotes Chimera compares to the quote from Amanda's testimony come in Amanda's book before she writes about the First Memorandum.

In this quote from her testimony, Amanda explains why she was forced by the police to imagine being at the murder with Patrick. She said she was pressured into accusing him. In her book, she described realizing what had happened and trying to rectify it. That's why she wrote her First Memorandum. There is no contradiction.

3. What's really odd is that even themurderofmeredithkercher.com doesn't have record of Amanda's phone call with her mother Chimera refers to in which Amanda tells her mother Guede is innocent.  In the prison visit on November 10, 2007 Amanda tells her mother that she feels bad about what her statement did to Patrick Lumumba, but Amanda could not have known that Patrick was innocent since she wasn't at the cottage during the murder or with Patrick. All she testified was that he was not guilty of what she said.

4. What is the contradiction in Amanda not mentioning Patrick in particular when she declared her 1:45 AM and 5:45 AM statements unreal and unreliable? It's true that Amanda naively thought she just needed to explain better to get the misunderstanding fixed, but if Chimera expected her to specifically state that Patrick was innocent, wouldn't Amanda be lying. As Amanda said, she wasn't there. So she could not say what did or did not happen at the murder.

5. There was no phone call on November 10, 2007. Amanda had a visit from her mother on that day. She never said that Patrick was Patrick was innocent of anything but what she accused him of. She couldn't know if he were at the murder or not since she was not there nor with him to know.

6. What's the contradiction in Amanda not mentioning in her book that at the November 30th hearing, she apologized to Patrick for falsely accusing him? Her book was not meant to be a transcript from the court hearings. It expressed what she experienced. Doesn't her apology contradict the case Chimera is trying to build against her?

7. Again, what legal ramifications are there that Amanda didn't mention in her book telling her lawyers that the accusations she was forced to sign were false? Has Chimera forgotten that she set about listing items courtroom-ready for Amanda's next legal event? And why would her lawyers be required to do anything about Patrick due to her claim her coerced statements were false? They had to deny saying anything about it or they would have been charged with slandering the police. Chimera was proven wrong in that Amanda testified telling her lawyers, but they were never charged for failing to act on her claim.

8. Amanda was not lying when she stated a falsehood she thought was truth. Lying is when the person expressing the falsehood is aware it is incorrect. Saying in her Memorandum of November 7th that she really did believe Patrick was the murderer at the time she signed the coerced statements is not confirming them.

What were her lawyers supposed to do about prosecution attempts to frame them with false evidence? If they complained Mignini would have sued them for slander. Of course Amanda's lawyers were defense lawyers, but they could not defend her if they were put in prison for calunnia.

9. Why can't suggestibility be used with force? Isn't brainwashing done with both? The police lied to Amanda and insisted that she stop lying about what they knew she knew. It may not be subtle, but it still works on suggestion.

What is the contradiction in Amanda saying Mignini was not present for the first interrogation but that he came in later? The differences between the 1:45 AM statement and the 5:45 AM statement shows that someone like Mignini must have worded the 5:45 AM statement. Especially where it adds the part about Amanda being afraid of Patrick. Supposedly the reason for needing her to sign again was because she was still a witness when she signed the 1:45 AM statement, but they didn't have to reword it to get her to sign again. There had to be a reason that a revised version was put before Amanda. That reason was Mignini.

10. This inconsistency about when they noticed the broken pipe doesn't prove they were anywhere but in Raffaele's apartment. Amanda's confusion over the time doesn't change that it happened that night. What difference did it make if they were seen with the mop at Raffaele's apartment? Nobody saw them with the mop. So why mention that they used the mop at his apartment if they didn't want anyone to know it? Besides, the police could not find any incriminating traces on the mop when they tested it.

11.  a) What difference does it make that Amanda didn't think to clean up the blood she discovered on the bathmat? She was planning a day trip to Gubbio and didn't have time for using the washing machine. Why would the feces in the toilet be stinking since it was submerged in water? Even so, what difference does it make that she didn't flush it? If guilters are right that she was trying to protect Guede, wouldn't she have made sure to have flushed it? So what if she did remember to carry the mop back to Raffaele's apartment even though she hadn't checked to see if the small puddle of water were still under the sink? Raffaele would have asked her about it if she came back without it.

b) So what if Amanda didn't clean up the tiny bit of blood in the sink. She wasn't supposed to be that keen on housework anyhow.

c) Amanda didn't do the bath mat shuffle because the floor was wet. She did it because she was wet for not knowing Guede had used the towels in the bathroom to try to stop Meredith's bleeding. Amanda didn't want to get water on the hall floor.

d) It was precisely because of the unflushed toilet that Amanda worried about an intruder being in the cottage. None of her roommates would have left the toilet unflushed.

e) What kind of mother does Chimera have to be worried about housework instead of her daughter's safety? Edda would have realized the things Amanda noticed in the cottage indicated danger. Why would Edda have said to clean up the blood, flush the toilet, and close the door instead of going back to Raffaele?

f) Seeing the empty house or the open door didn't spook Amanda, but the unflushed toilet did since none of her roommates would have left it that way. She testified to the significance of the unflushed toilet, but she didn't elaborate in her testimony her concern about an intruder. Even in her book she didn't say for sure she thought there was an intruder in the cottage, and she had second thoughts about that after she left the cottage.

g) There was no reason for Amanda to notice the broken window when approaching the cottage. The outer shutters were partially closed, and all her attention would have been focused on the open door.

h) Chimera is mistaken that Amanda testified that Raffaele woke up before she went to the cottage. In the quote Chimera used, she testified that he was still asleep and that she watched him for a while without saying he woke up. So it is the same thing as in her book where she said he was still asleep when she left.

i) What is the similarity between noticing things and remembering the mop? They are not the same things at all. And what difference does it make that Amanda did or didn't do all the things Chimera cites, but also remembers to take the mop? It doesn't change that Amanda was confused by what she saw at the cottage before going back with Raffaele.

12. Amanda wrote in her book that she had the feeling someone was watching her. Even if it were a panic attack, it's not the same thing as being scared. Amanda didn't have an actual reason to fear anything. So what's the contradiction with her testimony where she says that?

13. Amanda was trying to answer Luca Altieri's reasonable question about whether Meredith normally locked her door. That had nothing to do with the door being locked when Amanda didn't know where Meredith was. This is what Amanda was trying to explain in her testimony. There is no contradiction.

Amanda was answering specific question in her testimony. That she didn't mention what Chris also said in the phone conversation doesn't make any difference in her testimony.

14. There's no real contradiction worthy of blaming marketing for in claiming in testimony that Amanda and Raffaele went outside the cottage because she thought it was strange inside and that they did so because they were upset.

15. Even when she first saw the unflushed toilet, Amanda sensed that it was something that needed to be explained. None of her roommates would have left it unflushed, and if Amanda had flushed it, she would eventually been charged with destroying evidence. Maybe she hadn't thought it through to that conclusion, but it was still evidence of something strange which she made a concerted effort to tell the police. It's just Chimera who can't stand that Amanda didn't flush the toilet.

16. Amanda was not trying to paint herself as anything in her testimony. She was asked questions, and she replied with the knowledge that she had at that time. She didn't ask to testify in her own behalf. She was required to for the calunnia portion of her trial. Even in these quotes that Chimera provides, Amanda is shown to testify honestly about what she experienced and how she reacted.

Wednesday, November 15, 2017

Facts asserted by guilters about Marasca-Bruno

https://twitter.com/jimjoneskoolai2/status/930836920195743744

Facts Guilters assert are established by the Marasca-Bruno Motivations Report

1. The Supreme Court only referred to the trial court's claim Amanda was in the cottage during the murder. The reasons the trial court gave for its rulings were the coerced statements and the First Memorandum which actually refutes those statements.

2. The Supreme Court said the alibi was failed and not false. Amanda and Raffaele have always been each other's alibi, and that's why the police had to coerce them into signing statements that said otherwise.

3. The Supreme Court only said there was a strong suspicion that Raffaele would be where Amanda was and not that he was at the cottage during the murder. Also, this ruling contradicts the 5:45 AM statement Amanda was coerced into signing since that has her saying Raffaele wasn't there. It contradicts the statement Raffaele was coerced into signing since that has him saying he went home alone with Amanda coming home at 1:00 AM.

4. Amanda only lied on Laura's behest that marijuana was not used in the cottage. The 5th Chamber of the Supreme Court only confirmed without proof that Amanda had lied about Patrick Lumumba because the 1st Chamber had already ruled it. Since the police coerced her into believing that lie, it was their lie and not hers. Also, the Fifth Chamber only mentioned the suspicions they had concerning her inconsistencies and falsehoods without indicating she was trying to deceive.

5. The 5th Chamber didn't take up the question of Guede acting with accomplices since that ruling was from another case. The 5th Chamber did declare that Amanda and Raffaele were not Guede's accomplices.

6. The Fifth Chamber did not rule that Guede did not hold the knife. That was ruled in Guede's trial and was not something the Fifth Chamber could reconsider as it had already been confirmed by the First Chamber.

7. The Fifth Chamber did not confirm that Amanda heard Meredith screaming. They only referenced the trial court using that part of the statement Amanda was coerced into signing as proof that she was present at the murder. The 5:45 AM statement has Amanda both stating that she heard the scream and did not remember hearing it.

8. Amanda's DNA being found mixed with Meredith's blood in the sink has no incriminating significance since Amanda's DNA could be expected to be found in that sink which had used while living in that cottage.

9. The Fifth Chamber did not confirm a staging of the crime scene. They referred to the break-in as being alleged pointing out that Guede had a history of doing that and that Amanda and Raffaele told the police that nothing had been taken which statement detracted from the usefulness of a staging of the break-in to shift attention away from themselves.

10. The Fifth Chamber only stated that there was plausible consideration for Amanda claiming Patrick Lumumba had sexually attacked Meredith before results from the autopsy were available. The Fifth Chamber was still commenting on how the trial court was using the coerced statements to claim she was present at the murder. Never mind that it wasn't Patrick Lumumba and that the medical examiner ruled out rape.

11. The Fifth Chamber only confirmed that Amanda was not coerced in accusing Patrick Lamumba. They didn't say anything about the coercion needed to get Amanda to admit being at the murder. The prosecution may have verified this contradiction during the appeals by claiming Amanda had to have been at the murder in order for her to have accused Patrick Lamumuba.

12. The Fifth Chamber did not confirm that Amanda accused Patrick Lumumba to cover for Guede. They only expressed that the accusation could be seen that way. Furthermore, it is contradictory for guilters to claim the Fifth Chamber confirmed Amanda accused Patrick Lumumba to protect Guede and also staged a break-in which would have pointed straight at Guede.

13. The Fifth Chamber said at least two things about the ECHR appeal. First that the Fifth Chamber could not undo what the First Chamber had already confirmed. And second that Italian law does not provide for undoing what had already been decided in the calunnia conviction upon an unfavorable ruling by the ECHR. What it didn't express is how Italy would justify enforcing a conviction the ECHR was in violation of the charter Italy had signed.

14. The guilter assertion that the Fifth Chamber rulled that Guede had less motive than Amanda is difficult to understand. The Fifth Chamber did not rule that Amanda had any motive, but ruled that Guede's motive could not be attributed to Amanda or Raffaele. Also, guilters are quick to retort that motive is not necessary for conviction which leaves the question of what significance a motive has for proving anything.

Friday, November 10, 2017

Chimera's Questionable Allusions #01- Out of place objects

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/lies_unquestionably_lies_by_knox_but_on_the_stand_or_in_her_book_or_both_1/

There is always much doubt as to what a guilter like Chimera means by the accusation of lying. Guilters don't care what a discrepancy or mistake is, they assume Amanda Knox is hiding some guilty truth any time they accuse her of a falsehood. Most people are not as exacting in their wording of anything as guilters are of what Amanda says or writes.

Saying the police don't have bias in their testimony is ridiculous. They got caught assuming Amanda was guilty before they even got their own forensic reports back proving Rudy Guede was the killer. They had already coerced Amanda into admitting she was present at the murder. So they constructed misinformation to make it seem her recanting her confession was just another lie.

It's ridiculous to accuse Amanda of maliciousness when she is only expressing what the Italian Judiciary did to her. It is not narcissism for her to defend her name against false accusations.

Amanda is just a normal human being who as an innocent never thought she should not express her innocence instead of making the judiciary prove her guilt. If her statements have contradictions, it is from the lack of guilt that would have prompted her to make sure she said the same rehearsed statements over and over.

It has never occurred to Chimera, Judge Massei, or Judge Nencini that Amanda was telling the truth about how the police confused her into agreeing to things she would never have said in her right mind.

Normal people do change their mind about things in their life. People don't think about events while they are occurring, and they revise their impression of what happened to them as others ask them about those events.

I have to wonder why Chimera says the things she does about Amanda Knox. She seems to have decided that Amanda has to be lying since Amanda denies having anything to do with Guede's crimes against Meredith Kercher.

The main thing to remember about Amanda's testimony in 2009 is that she did not volunteer to do this. She was required to do this because of Patrick Lumumba's slander lawsuit. Nothing in this testimony was voluntarily contradicting anything else. She had no opportunity to study her answers to determine how appropriate they were.

How are omissions important as lies in what she wrote in her book. The book was subject to marketing. She wrote it to appeal to the common reader and not to guilters who expected their encyclopedia if facts to be represented. It was supposed to be in Amanda's words and not words chose by her accusers.

The section of Amanda's book Chimera chose to quote was not about how broad a subject her testimony became, but how it was important for understanding the false accusations against Amanda.

A. Totally obscure things:

1) Guilters like Chimera love to allude to what they claim are contradictions in what Amanda says or writes. These alleged contradictions have little significance and most of the time are just a matter of opinion.

2) Of course Amanda left out most of her testimony. It was a rehash of questions she had already been asked. Most of it had no relevance to the calunnia charge that it was supposed to be the rationale requiring it. The rest of these items may have significance to guilters, but they don't contribute to the account Amanda wrote.


B. Nonsensical Stuff:

3) Why is it relevant to anything that Francesco Maresca asked her questions? Does that make any difference in Amanda's answers?

4) Why is it relevant to anything that Guilia Bongiorno asked her questions? Does that make any difference in Amanda's answers? Does that make any difference in Amanda's answers?

5) Why is it relevant to anything that Luca Maori asked her questions? Does that make any difference in Amanda's answers?

6) Why is it relevant to anything that Giancarlo Massei asked her questions? Does that make any difference in Amanda's answers?

7) Why is it relevant to anything that a taped phone call with Filomena Romanelli was played? Does that make any difference in Amanda's answers to questions?


C. Misrepresented facts

8) Why would Amanda expect to be interrogated when she only went with Raffaele to the police station on Nov. 5th because she was afraid to be alone with a killer loose?

9) Why is it important that Amanda didn't erase any "sent" messages?

10) Why was it important that Amanda didn't mention in her 5:45 AM statement anything about the lists the Ficarra asked for, but did mention imagining the events?

11) Why did each reason given to Amanda for being hit in the head have to have a separate instance of battery? Ficarra could have had more than one reason at a time.

12) Since the 5:45 AM statement has Amanda both saying she heard Meredith screaming and that she didn't remember hearing Meredith screaming, what is so unbelievable about it being the police who suggested the scream to her?

13) Since Amanda called both coerced statements unreal in her First Memorandum, what difference does it make that the 5:45 AM statement has her claiming to hear a thud that nobody else claimed existed?

14) Since those who witnessed what was inside Meredith's room when Luca Altieri broke down the door, what difference did it make that Amanda assumed as they did that there was an sexual assault?

15) It was Luca Altieri who told Raffaele and Amanda an officer told him Meredith's throat had been slashed. He told them while driving them to the police station.

16) Actually, Amanda testified that she imagined it took a long time for Meredith to die. This was why she was upset with the suggestion Meredith died quickly. She was angry the killer did this to her friend.

17) There's nothing in Amanda's testimony about her hearing a gurgling sound from Meredith, but what of it if Amanda heard of such a thing from CSI?

18) Actually, Amanda wrote in her First Memorandum that her memories of being at the murder were unreal and unreliable compared to her memories of being with Raffaele at his apartment during the same period of time. That Amanda wrote how confused she was after the interrogation should have indicated that the statements the police had her sign were coerced.

19) The 5:45 AM statement does have Amanda claiming she imagined it all. Amanda didn't tell her mother Patrick Lumumba was innocent since she was not at the murder to know that for sure. She only said she regretted what her statements had done to him. In her First Memorandum Amanda did say the statements the police had her sign were unreal and unreliable.

20) Amanda only testified the police had made her believe Patrick Lumumba was guilty. She didn't testify that he was guilty.

21) Needing a mop to clean up a spill of water at RS's apartment has a lot in common with Amanda doing the bathmat shuffle in her own home to avoid leaving water on her own floor.

22) It's irrelevant how long Guede's feces have been in the toilet. Amanda would not have know that. It did spook her that it had to have been an intruder who left his crap could have still been in the house.

23) It's in the 5:45 AM statement that Amanda imagined what could have happened. Of course Giobbi claimed they didn't need her confession since they already knew she was guilty, but what hard evidence was it? There is only rulings to make the facts mean something they don't prove.

24) Ficarra didn't get the bun and tea until after lunchtime the next day.

25) Amanda was replying to her mother saying that people didn't believe she was at Raffaele's apartment. If Chimera wants to inflame the response by saying what Amanda and Raffaele were doing in his apartment while Guede was murdering Meredith, what difference does that make?

26) Amanda only testified the mark on her neck was a hickey. She didn't say it looked like a scratch. She said it was a hickey from Raffaele.

27) Even if the teacher assigned Amanda to write about ten minutes before the finding of a body, what does this class assignment for a course at the University of Washington have to do with Meredith's death? Amanda did this assignment before she came to Italy.

28) What makes Chimera think that it was because Amanda remembered that she knew Ficarra's name four years later? Ficarra testified at the trial. Amanda would have learned it then if not from the newspapers about the case.

29) Why did Amanda need to mention she testified she didn't clean up the blood she found in the bathroom when it was obvious from her prior description of that that she had not cleaned it up? What significance is there that Amanda didn't clean up the little bit of blood that was in the bathroom? Besides, she was there to take a shower and get a change of clothing. She and Raffaele were planning a day trip to Gubbio that day.

30) Amanda only testified that it seemed strange to her that the front door was open. She wrote about this in her book. So what purpose did it serve to repeat this fact as being part of her testimony?

31) Amanda was not asked what she thought about her lamp being found in Meredith's room. She only supposed it was hers by the description she was told. She didn't know if Meredith had one like it.

32) Amanda was consistent in telling her mother she couldn't remember that first phone call to her mother and testifying the same thing. How does Chimera know that Amanda ever remembered that phone call? Even if she never got around the mental block of that memory, she could have written about the event from what her mother told her she said. It's not as though Amanda made up the event.

33) Amanda expressed the interest of getting on with her life well after she knew Meredith. Why would Chimera expect differently? It's not healthy to be mired in depression forever no matter how much Amanda cared for Meredith. Why would it be necessary for Amanda to write about that in her account of what happened to her while she was in Italy?

34) What things does Chimera thinks Amanda imagined lasted for years? What is it that Chimera considered only happened once? Was it the threat the police made that Amanda would go to prison for 30 years if she didn't remember what they wanted her to remember?

35) Amanda only wrote in her book that she was surrounded by police officers. She only testified that there were a lot of them. There's a definite number of police officers who signed the interrogation report, but there may not have been that many who actually interrogated her. It was probably more than four since she couldn't keep track of them.

36) Demanding Amanda imagine what could have happened is not an unusual practice in getting a subject to talk. And of course the 5:45 AM statement has Amanda saying she "was imagining what could have happened." The huge amount of evidence Chimera claimed the police had at this stage was only that she was at the cottage during the murder. That was a lie. They needed a statement from her placing herself at the murder to arrest her, and the 5:45 AM statement was the reason they gave for arresting her.

37) How can Chimera suggest that the technique of asking the suspect to imagine what would have happened was never used anywhere else? Surely there are plenty of police officers who would gladly imitate Lt. Colombo to get results. Even if it were just the retort of "What do you think happened then?" The police would turn the tables on a suspect to see what the suspect would say. And even if nobody else ever thought to ask a suspect to suggest what happened, that doesn't make it any less real that the police did that to Amanda.

38) It's not that Amanda Knox doesn't understand the meaning of the word "confirm," it's the misleading statements that she was asked to confirm (or deny) that she had to elaborate on in order to give a clear answer.

39) Amanda did have trouble distinguishing what the police were telling her from reality, but she has a clear grasp of what they were doing to her now. It's guilters like Chimera who still want to put words into Amanda's mouth as though those words are the real thing.

Tuesday, October 10, 2017

Despicable shakedown of Amanda Knox--#10yearsagotodayAMK

https://audioboom.com/posts/6375247-despicable-the-shakedown-of-amanda-knox-episode-6-10yearsagotodaymk

So far not many civilians have used the #10yearsagotodayMK hashtag. Undoubtedly guilters will conclude that proves Amanda Knox is guilty.

Amanda also noticed how quickly Meredith's friends changed their attituted toward her. Amanda was being herself, but Meredith's friends expected her to be something else. Maybe the guys downstairs also had strange expectation of who they wanted
Amanda to be, but why is that Amanda's fault?

What difference does it make that Amanda Knox was an opportunist? Most young people are opportunists. They're still learning what they want from life. And what does van der Leek expect out of a proper relationship? What did he expect Amanda to do differently in a so-called proper relationship?

Does van der Leek mean by proper relationship that Amanda submit to one guy? Why is it immature for Amanda to have a mind of her own?

Why does van der Leek expect commitments from Amanda that aren't expected from anyone else? Many attractive girls acquaint themselves with many boys. Boys certainly have no qualms about having relationships with multiple girls.

How was Amanda's job at Le Chic supposed to have permanently identified her? Most people her age do not attach any identity to part-time jobs they have while going to school. What's the big deal about Le Chic?

Van der Leek implies that Amanda was acquitted due to corruption. He thinks that Amanda did something despicable to manipulate her acquittal. He is personally offended by the injustice he thinks Amanda committed without acknowledging the injustice done to her.

Van der Leek asks how did justice fail in the acquittal of Amanda Knox without there being any reason to believe justice did fail. I think it finally succeeded in spite of corrupted forces determined to punish her for murder she didn't commit.

Justice already demands retribution for deceit used to subvert it. An acquittal manipulated by criminal acts of the defendant can be overturned sending the defendant back to court as though there had never been a trial. That is not double-jeopardy. Assuming that deceit had to play a part does not warrant such legal action.

Van der Leek expresses concern that justice is what protects us from the corruption of government or powerful elements of society. But doesn't respect for justice require us to examine what happened to Amanda? Respect for justice is not letting the authorities make the false case they did against her. Respect for justice does not require respect for those who abuse justice.

Van der Leek wants to expose how Amanda was in contradiction to what was decided by convicting courts, but doesn't consider that those court decisions were in contradiction to the truth. He expects the authority of the government courts to be truth. This attitude of his contradicts his concern about government corruption. Government courts can be injustice.

Wilson expresses the necessity of discussing the acquittal because she says it's wrong. Did she agree with Amanda's supporters need to express their certainty that the convictions were wrong? The legal system is supposed to provide a non-violent way for the state find a conclusion for how to treat persons accused of crimes. That the legal options are exhausted is supposed to end how the government is used in this endeavor. People can have their own opinions, but if they slander the acquitted defendant, the gossips should be ready to face a law suit.

Wilson and van der Leek use all sorts of examples extraneous to Amanda's life to build the assumption that outsiders will strike at others in frustration over their isolation. Amanda didn't care that she was an outsider to the elite who were around her. She found friends among other outcasts.

A knife may be a personal way to hurt someone, but that doesn't mean that the attacker has to know his victim. It's just personal in that the attacker comes into direct contact with the victim. There's no such thing as a drive-by knifing. Guede was not a complete stranger to Meredith, but he was a complete stranger to the man he threatened with a knife one of the times he was arrested for burglary.

Guilters like to retort that motive is not necessary for conviction, but then they make up motives for Amanda to have in order to accuse her of actions they assume would have been prompted by those made up motives. Motive without evidence should not convict. The motives guilters fashion for Amanda only suggest suspicions.

Again, Amanda never dwelt on being an outsider. She simply didn't care if she was included. She found friends who accepted her, and she had her own interests that did not depend on van der Leek's approval. When she didn't seem to have many women as friends, (but she did and does have friends who are women,) she played soccer and went rock climbing with the boys.

There were problems working in a bar that Amanda had to deal with. Whether she enjoyed working there is irrelevant. Most people have work problems that they deal with and which make the work experience less than satisfactory.

It's nice of van der Leek to admit that Amanda had no reason to believe she had been fired the night that Meredith died. Supposedly Patrick replacing her with Meredith was a motive for killing Meredith. Why would Amanda care since van der Leek claims she didn't like working there anyhow?

Is it strange that as Patrick Lumumba blamed Amanda for his arrest and the closing of his business, his attitude toward her changed? Whether he really offered Meredith a job as a bartender or not, he hadn't hired Amanda as a bartender. He didn't start talking about replacing Amanda with Meredith until after Meredith's death. So Amanda would have had no reason to be threatened by Meredith because of her bar tending experience.

It should be noted that Amanda did apologize for naming Patrick Lumumba during the November 30, 2007 hearing.

However sociable Patrick Lumumba considered Meredith to be, there were plenty of customers who considered Amanda to be interesting. Patrick Lumumba didn't seem to like Amanda's social manner even though liked Meredith's.

Didn't van der Leek claim in a previous podcast that there was a video of Amanda with a group of drunk guys? So how can van der Leek claim that Amanda was inexperienced with drinking alcoholic beverages and being around drunks.  And why wouldn't Amanda have had to dealt with customers at the coffee shop hitting on her? Whoever said that male libido depended on alcohol?

Regardless of Meredith's experience with alcohol and drunks, why would it ever have come up in conversation between Amanda and Meredith that this was an advantage? It's crazy for van der Leek to think this would have made any impression on Amanda.

Van der Leek has already criticized Amanda for her lack of commitment, but then he questions where she said in her book that in college she was interested in who she would become as a person. Maybe there were times when this question was not uppermost in her mind, but that doesn't mean she wasn't thinking about maturity. And a beer party is exactly the place where a young person should think about what she intends to do with the rest of her life.

Amanda wasn't pretending anything. She just described how she well she did working at Le Chic that first night. Working as a waitress or waiter is a hard job. What did van der Leek expect? Also, a bar tends to be a dark place anyhow. That Amanda described Le Chic that way is not surprising. Le Chic wasn't very fashionable which may have been why Patrick Lumumba was having trouble getting customers. He claimed after his arrest that Amanda had caused him to lose his business, but it certainly looks like he was already losing it.

Amanda wasn't belittling Patrick when she said he gave her a blank look. He didn't understand the American idiomatic expression she had translated directly into Italian. And she didn't say he smooched her. She said he gave her a kiss on the cheek which is a popular gesture in Italy. Where did Amanda criticize Patrick as a lecher for kissing her? If van der Leek thinks Patrick's kiss was inappropriate, wouldn't it still be inappropriate even if Amanda didn't say anything about it?

Does Amanda give up the right to say what Le Chic was like just because she asked to work there? Le Chic was still what it was even though Amanda asked for a job.

Wilson starts quoting Patrick Lamumba and Sophie talking about Amanda's being moody and flighty. If Amanda really did have "erratic" behavior of mood swings and "flightiness" beyond what is normally expected of women with their hormones, why is it the fault of her personality or character? Maybe it was a medical condition over which she had no control. Amanda didn't pretend she was something she was not, and yet she gets accused of being deceitful.

A tomboy is not lacking in identity. Amanda may not have identified with the type of women who were Meredith's British friends, but that doesn't prove Amanda had identity issues. Besides, Wilson ignores that Amanda had female friends in Seattle. Whatever Wilson means by women who do not connect with women, that does not equate to those women using sex to connect to men. How can Wilson characterize Amanda's relationships with men as not being real? What do young people really expect from relationships anyhow? People don't really understand how important friends are until they are elderly and their friends are dying.

Regardless of what message van der Leek thinks guys would take from Amanda's behavior, guys should be aware that their expectations do not necessarily accord with what women want. There are guys who take anything about a woman as an invitation to sex. Those guys do have a tendency to defend themselves against rape charges by claiming the girl was asking for it.

What van der Leek implies about Amanda's sex life, she didn't have sex with just anyone. In her book she wrote about a pushy guy she refused.

Patrick may claim he told Amanda he had asked Meredith to work for him, but there's no mention of him saying this before Meredith died. Also, there is absolutely no reason for Amanda to be jealous of Meredith for also working at Le Chic. That Patrick surmised that Amanda was jealous of Meredith doesn't make him right.

Guilters love to claim that Amanda used hard drugs, but there is no evidence of that. Hormones as well as drugs can cause moodiness, and women have plenty of hormones to make them moody.

Van der Leek admits that Lumumba hired Amanda for her looks to bring in customers when he needed them. She suspected that that was so when she applied for the job. Why would that be motive for resenting Meredith?

Maybe the reason Amanda didn't understand why Patrick told her he didn't want her working for him was that he didn't tell her that? Why wouldn't Amanda be surprised that she was arrested for a murder she didn't commit? What was she supposed to have improved to avoid that? Saying no to the police?

Amanda did understand why Meredith's friends didn't like her. She was different from them. Why does Wilson expect Amanda to have changed to please those people? It wasn't anything about Amanda that was festering. It's the ridiculous expectations of guilters.

There is nothing corroborating Lumumba's assertion that Amanda felt Meredith was invading Amanda's territory. Lumumba is just speculating. It's strange to criticize Amanda for lacking social skills and then to claim she was jealous when the reason she didn't have social skills was because she didn't care.

Even if van der Leek thinks Meredith's death was staged, Meredith's death does not prove that Amanda killed her. There is no way to prove the alleged staging could only have been committed by Amanda. Claiming she was the only one who would want it done doesn't prove there was nobody else. How could the attack be ruled as not sexual when the semen found on the pillow under Meredith's rear end was not tested? Doesn't semen indicate sex?

Where are the studies that the perpetrator of a horrific crime cannot be a stranger? However personal van der Leek sees the crime committed with a knife, the sense of power he talks about could appeal to a stranger as well as someone with a personal vendetta. It was never proved that Amanda had a vendetta against Meredith anyhow.

The hostility is only gossip and speculation about what Meredith supposedly said. It's never about what Amanda said herself. So all that can be shown is that Meredith could have been hostile to Amanda, but van der Leek expects that Amanda actually responded to that hostility. That's just his speculation.

Amanda didn't say anything about her "CV." Van der Leek inserted that term. Amanda wrote in her book that it was not her work experience that Juve and Patrick were interested in. She wasn't denying that she didn't have much of a work history.

There's no evidence that Amanda considered all the things van der Leek emphasized she couldn't do at the bar. She knew she was hired for her looks and that her ability as a waitress didn't matter. Van der Leek has already admitted that Lumumba had scheduled her for days for which he needed more customers.

Since there is no indication that Amanda knew of Lumumba's contention he would hire Meredith, there is no way to prove Amanda felt any resentment for that. Amanda never said or did anything that would be confirmation of Lumumba's claim.

Van der Leek makes up all this jealousy that Amanda supposedly had for Meredith getting a job at Le Chic, and Meredith wasn't working there. There is no evidence that Meredith ever took seriously the alleged offer of job that Lumumba claims he made.

Since it's obvious that Lumumba hired Amanda for her looks to attrack customers to his bar, how does van der Leek expect her to have done that without appearing to flirt with the customer? Being friendly would be considered flirting. So what did van der Leek expect? And of course Amanda depended on whoever she could trust to help her get safely home after the late hour that the bar closed. Her friend Juve usually did that.

Wilson laughed at a section of Amanda's book in which Amanda said she was not a big drinker. Just because she had episodes in which she got drunk doesn't make her a consummate drinker. It's a fiction that Amanda was always drunk. She was not.

Barista is the title of someone who makes fancy coffee drinks. Amanda was not implying she worked at a bar when she said she worked as a barista. That's van der Leek's assumption.

Many people Amanda's age do expect that they should have fun at their work. Actually, I've come across people who think if they are not having fun at their work, they're being punished for some reason. Nobody wants to be stuck with a job that does not suit them, and having fun at it is supposed to be the indicator of the job being suitable.

Amanda didn't ask for the job her uncle got for her. She went to that job because he told her to, and then it turned out there wasn't anything for her to do. Earlier in this podcast van der Leek made a big deal over how Amanda asked for the job at Le Chic as though that took away her right to complain about it. So why couldn't she complain about the job at the Bundestag that she didn't ask for? The main reason she went to Berlin before starting her classes in Perugia was to visit with her aunt and uncle. Why did Amanda need an excuse to avoid working at the Bundestag?

It does seem strange that Lumumba kept offering Amanda drinks at his bar. Whether or not he was a lecher, wasn't that a rather strange management practice? Neither barkeepers nor the help should get tipsy while on the job. It's van der Leek's assumption that Amanda was calling Lumumba slimy. Amanda just couldn't understand why he did it.

Wilson admits that Patrick Lumumba didn't even make the alleged job offer to Meredith until after 3 AM on November 1st. So how was Amanda supposed to have been jealous of something she could not have heard about before Meredith died?

Where did van der Leek get the idea that Meredith discussed Lumumba's alleged job offer with her friends the night of November 1st? They didn't testify about this. Since Lumumba claims Meredith had already agreed to work for him, what was there for Meredith to discuss with her friends? Searching "Google" or True Justice for Meredith Kercher does not yield this tidbit of information.

Most waitresses make the bulk of their income from tips rather than from the wage their employer pays them.

Where did van der Leek get the idea that Amanda described Meredith as an uptight British girl who drinks too much or cannot have fun?

Amanda told Meredith that Amanda wasn't interested in Giacomo anymore. It's Meredith that expressed resentment to her friends over what Amanda said. That's Meredith's hostility Amanda never knew about.

There is no evidence that Amanda thought she was losing her job. Lumumba only texted her not to come in the night of November 1st because there were no customers. He didn't say anything about firing her.

If before Halloween Lumumba had told Amanda she could no longer work in Le Chic, why was it necessary for him to tell her not to come into work November 1st? Since Lumumba claimed that Meredith after 3 AM November 1st said she would work for him, how is it that he had fired Amanda already? And if van der Leek claims that Meredith didn't discuss Lumumba's job offer with her friends until the night of November 1st, how could she have agreed to work for him that morning?

There was no evidence that Amanda stole Meredith's rent money. It was never found. Amanda did not have it. She certainly had money in the bank which Guede did not. So how does van der Leek ignore that Guede was a previously arrested burglar who broke into the villa and ransacked Meredith's room? Whether he knew about the rent money is irrelevant since he was looking for money. After all, his DNA was found on Meredith's purse and her wallet was missing.

Van der Leek goes back to his fabricated hostility he alleges Amanda had for Meredith. Supposedly this is the motive for her to steal Meredith's rent money, but that doesn't prove it happened.

Van der Leek's theory of confrontation is ridiculous. There simply is no proof that Amanda and Raffaele were even at the villa when Guede was there alone with Meredith. Van der Leek's scenario of the four people in Meredith's room is just speculation.

Wilson's remarks about Amanda's supposed drug use comparable to usage of heroin, but there is no evidence that Amanda used anything but marijuana. Even her roommates used marijuana. So what does that have to do with heroin and cocaine?

It really is illuminating how Lumumba saw his talk with Amanda outside the library and how she saw it. He thought she only cared about how the questioning was stressful on her, and she wrote that she had to tell him she could not continue working at Le Chic.

Van der Leek complains that Amanda left before Le Chic closed, but since Lumumba was to say he had already told her she couldn't work in the bar anymore, I don't see what the problem is. Or did Lumumba change his mind calling her in like Amanda wrote in her book? She would have been correct that it wasn't her night to work if Lumumba had told her not to work in the bar anymore.

Wilson refers to a picture that was taken of alcohol that Amanda and her fiancee have now as an indication of how much alcohol she was consuming ten years ago. In the first place, alcohol still in the bottle is not alcohol that has been consumed. Also to the point is that ten years have elapsed. Whatever her interest in alcohol is today has little to do with how much she was drinking then.

Despite van der Leek's insinuation, Amanda's list of sex partners in her prison diary does not include Juve.