Pages

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.

Friday, October 6, 2017

Leigh Egan revisiting evidence

http://www.crimeonline.com/2017/10/05/amanda-knox-evidence-revisited-six-years-after-prison-release/

Amanda Knox didn't say she was on Raffaele Sollecito's computer the night of November 1st. She said they were using it to watch a movie which she thought ended at 9:15 PM. The examination of that computer did not show it had not been used at all that night. The evidence is that it had been used until 9:10 PM.

There was no witness that testified seeing Amanda and Raffaele at the crime scene that night. There was only Antonio Curatolo who gave a confusing account of seeing them at a public square nearby. Since he was high on heroin, there is no proof that the couple he saw were Amanda and Raffaele, but if he saw them at the times he said he saw them, the couple he saw could not have been at the murder when the prosecutor claimed it occurred.

It wasn't Curatolo's misinformation with which the police confronted Amanda and Raffaele. It was the misinformation of the police's own that they told Amanda and Raffaele. They told Amanda that they had hard evidence that she was at the murder and that she had met with Patrick Lamumba whom she had texted "See you later." For Raffaele it was that Amanda had to have gone out that night without him and that the phone records proved he didn't call the Carabinieri until after the Postal Police had arrived.

Why Amanda and Raffaele were surprised that the Postal Police were not the Carabinieri whom they were outside awaiting is a mystery if they had not already called 112. The investigators finally demanded that Amanda tell them what she imagined would have happened if she had gone to the murder with Patrick Lumumba, and immediately insisted that she was not imagining anything but had actually experienced what she said.

The reason the video of a woman claimed to look like Amanda was not entered as evidence in the trial was because the that woman was walking away from the cottage just before the time the prosecutor assumed the murder took place. If that had been Amanda, it would have proved she couldn't have committed the murder.

Amanda was confused by the police saying Raffaele had withdrawn his alibi for her and said she had asked him to lie for her. His coerced statement only said that she had convinced him of her version of things, but there was no indication what things there were in that alleged version. Amanda had been questioned that night for an hour and forty-five minutes before the police were able to get her to sign their version of things.

The police typed the 1:45 AM and 5:45 AM statements in Italian for Amanda to sign. Even the Interpreter testified that Amanda could not read those statements. The differences in those two statements show that they were compiled by different people. They certainly were not her voluntary expressions of anything as can be seen from her First Memorandum which she wrote within hours of signing the 5:45 AM statement.

Please See http://bourgoisviews.blogspot.com/2017/06/first-memorandum-description-of-abusive.html for my detailed explanation of just what in her First Memorandum supports the fact that she was coerced during the interrogation of November 5-6th.

It wasn't that Amanda waited until 2013 to state how she was treated. But even though she had expressed all this in her First Memorandum, her lawyers told her that it wouldn't do any good to mhttp://www.crimeonline.com/2017/10/05/amanda-knox-evidence-revisited-six-years-after-prison-release/ake a complaint about it. As it was the police sued her over what she said about that interrogation, but fortunately their case failed.

Amanda did spend 53 hours detained for questioning. She was not under questioning for all of those 53 hours, but waiting in the police station did tire her. Also, it gave the police to secretly record what she said to Raffaele while they waited. Even while the police were claiming she was not a suspect, they were gathering evidence to use against her.

Amanda has been criticized for not telling the police that Meredith's door was locked. Raffaele had already said this when he called 112. So there was no reason to repeat that fact. It's also false that Amanda told the Postal Police that it was not unusual for Meredith to lock her door.

It was Luca Altieri who asked Amanda if Meredith usually locked her door, and it was Raffaele who was translated how Amanda tried to answer Altieiri's question. Amanda could not have known that Raffaele had misunderstood her answer in English. Raffaele has since said he later realized Amanda's statement about Meredith's locking of the door was not differenthttp://www.crimeonline.com/2017/10/05/amanda-knox-evidence-revisited-six-years-after-prison-release/ from what Filomena said when she got to the cottage.

Actually, what Amanda told Meredith's friends at the police station was that Meredith's body was in the closet which was not correct. Amanda probably misunderstood what someone else said who was near the door when Altieri knocked it down. Altieri told Raffaele and Amanda that Meredith's throat had been slashed. Altieri was driving the three of them to the police station at the time he said this.

The police decided that Amanda had killer's information when she repeated what Altieri said to Meredith's friends.

Raffaele didn't say anything about accidentally cutting Meredith while she was at his apartment. He was writing in his own diary while in prison trying to make sense of the police claim that Meredith's DNA was found on his kitchen knife. He wasn't trying to deceive anyone with his brainstorming on the subject, but the police confiscated his diary and published it.

The hilt marks found on Meredith's neck make Raffaele's kitchen knife to long to make the wounds in her neck. Also, the scientific police had cheated on test of  the sample supposedly having Meredith's DNA. Investigator Stefanoni had enlarged the sample beyond its useful limit, and any stray Meredith DNA from provious tests conducted would have given the result that Meredith's DNA were present in this sample also.

Raffaele's bi-weekly housekeeper Marina Kiriboga first told police that she did not use bleach in Raffaele's apartment, but while being questioned by his lawyer, she remembered that she had used it there.

Regardless of the presence of bleach in Raffaele's apartment, bleach must not have been used to clean Raffaele's kitchen kinfe since the starch found on it would have been cleaned off. That starch would have absorbed blood if that kitchen knife had been used in the bloody attack on Meredith, but no blood was found in the starch that was found on Raffaele's kitchen knife.

It is expected that Amanda's and Meredith's DNA was found in the cottage where they both lived. Amanda's was not found in Meredith's room.

The footprints found with Luminol tested negative for blood. Luminol will react with bleach which was probably used for spot cleaning at some time or another. The footprints attributed to Amanda could have even been Meredith's. Saying they were compatible with Amanda's footprints is not proving they were incompatible with the footprints of any other woman who lived there. There is no way to prove when the footprints got there.

In addition to bra clasp being kicked around for 46 days gathering dust, the police failed to change their gloves and shoe covers to prevent contamination from be brought into Meredith's room from the rest of the cottage where Raffaele would have left his DNA while visiting Amanda before and after the murder.

It was not the footprint on the bath mat that was later identified as belonging to Guede. It was his shoe prints in Meredith's room and leading down the hall to the front door when he left.

The footprint on the bath mat is subject to dispute. Supposedly, the prosecutor's expert measured it to be closer to Raffaele's footprint, but that expert was measuring from a photo and got the measurements wrong. There simply was no reason for Raffaele to be barefoot, but it's reasonable that Guede tried to clean his shoe when he went into that bathroom to get towels he claimed he used to try to stop Meredith's bleeding.

It's sort of peculiar that only Guede's left shoe left shoe prints. It was a right footprint that was left on the bath mat.

Ms. Houle and No-No-No

https://truecrimespodcasts.com/2017/06/28/no-no-no-italian-courts-tell-amanda-knox-ex/#more-15961

There is no reason Raffaele Sollecito should be denied compensation for wrongful imprisonment because of the lies the police coerced him into signing. It was those very police lies that were used for arresting him.

When the ECHR decides that Amanda Knox was coerced into accusing Patrick Lumumba of murder, her calunnia conviction will no longer have any force preventing her to sue for wrongful imprisonment.

Even if Liz Houle considers the Fifth Chamber to have ruled that Amanda Knox was in the cottage when Meredith Kercher was murdered, her false confessions of 1:45 AM and 5:45 AM cannot be used as evidence of that. And her First Memorandum she wrote hours after signing the 5:45 AM coerced statement declares that her being in the cottage at that time is an unreal and unreliable memory compared to the memory of being with Raffaele at his apartment at the same time.

Marasca-Bruno did not state that Amanda washed Meredith's blood from her hands. It only states that skin DNA from washing her hands was present with Meredith's blood in the sink.

In the end, Marasca-Bruno concluded that Amanda and Raffaele were acquitted for not having committed the crime. The motivation report also ruled that whoever Guede's accomplices were, Amanda and Raffaele were not those accomplices.

Thursday, October 5, 2017

Despicable shakedown of Amanda Knox--what is known?

https://audioboom.com/posts/6356860-despicable-the-shakedown-of-amanda-knox-episode-5-did-you-know?playlist_direction=forward&t=0

There is no evidence that Francesco Sollecito advised Raffaele Sollecito on how to remove DNA evidence from anywhere. Of course it's ridiculous that Amanda and Raffaele could have selectively removed their invisible DNA while leaving Guede's invisible DNA.

Van der Leek makes the guilter claim that DNA cannot be transferred. Their assertion is that tertiary touch transfer is not possible. What's to keep secondary touch transfer from transferring again?

The main reason nobody made an issue over the wound on Amanda Knox's neck that van der Leek sees in the video of her kissing Raffaele Sollecito is that only guilters can see it.

The mark on Amanda's neck was never proved to have been a wound. It was a bruise commonly called a hickey. Since van der Leek asks how the healing was accelerated to close the wound he assumed, he admits that there was no break in the skin to begin with.

Van der Leek says he's not quite sure what to make of Raffaele's hands an fingernails in a police photo, but van der Leek sure wants the listener to imagine that Raffaele had cuts on his hands and that his bitten fingernails makes him worry about something. Of course lots of people bite their fingernails for no reason at all.

With all the ridiculous detail that the police had demanded of Amanda, why does van der Leek make it seem like Amanda was accusing Raffaele of anything by mentioning the fish blood she remember on his hand? It was the police who insisted that she tell them everything no matter how insignificant it was.

Fresh fish does have blood. I've seen it when I went fishing. There's no reason to expect it to be missing when Raffaele prepared the fish for cooking. Maybe Wilson and van der Leek have never cooked any fresh fish.

Of course fish was what Amanda and Raffaele ate on November 1st. Does Wilson say they ate it that day "as well" because Amanda was describing that meal in her First Memorandum written on Nov. 6th?

Where did van der Leek get the idea that Raffaele wrote in his book that Amanda didn't get along with Meredith? Raffaele wrote:

"I never heard about a single tense moment between them. On the contrary, they toured the sights and went out for meals and music and dancing."
Location 37, Preface, "Honor Bound"

Raffaele did write that Meredith's friends didn't like Amanda because Amanda was too unrestrained in her behavior, but that's not saying that Meredith didn't like Amanda.

Van der Leek complains again about the PR machine that advocated Amanda's innocence. Amanda didn't pay any of us to do that. The PR firm that her father hired to intercede between their family and the media had no control over the groundswell of support that Amanda got.

Who cares if Raffaele wrote Amanda called him to come pick her up when what she sent him was a text message. It was still a call for him to come pick her up.

Why would Amanda be moving around when she has already text messaged Raffaele to come pick her up at the fountain? It makes more sense that the phone company used a different phone tower to make the connection. There is absolutely no way that the phone tower is going to know from the signal that it is the nearest tower to the phone pinging. The phone tower that has good signal and the least traffic will take the ping.

There's another factor as to why Amanda may have chosen text messages as much as she did. There's the lower cost of sending a text message as compared to making a phone call. How does a text message keep Raffaele from texting or calling Amanda back as he did? And how was Amanda supposed to avoid further conversation when Raffaele picked her up? Did it occur to van der Leek that Amanda just wanted Raffaele to pick her up instead of asking questions about Spiros first?

Why would Meredith contact Amanda to ask if she was alright if Meredith was not supposed to like Amanda? If Amanda didn't care if Meredith were alright, why did she repeatedly text message Meredith on Halloween? How was Amanda supposed to have known that Meredith had gone out late at night if Amanda was away from home also? Amanda certainly could not know that Meredith had been away from home when Amanda was at Raffaele's apartment.

Wilson used the word "character" out of character with how van der Leek in a previous podcast defined it.

Wilson brings up an interesting point. Did Meredith have some jealousy of Amanda because Giacomo could have had a prior crush on Amanda? Amanda said it didn't matter to her, but supposedly Meredith was upset by Amanda's gracious acquiescence to Meredith's claim on Giacomo.

Meredith was not happy with Giacomo's neglect to acknowledge her in public even though he was having sexual relations with her. Did Meredith blame Amanda for this? Why was Amanda supposed to have been jealous of this? The implication is that Meredith could have wanted Amanda dead instead of Amanda wanting Meredith dead.

Oh, how interesting! Van der Leek thinks that Amanda who was noted for her campaign of casual sex, had an affair with Giacomo which would have been a reason for Meredith to hate Amanda, but not the other way around.

It's van der Leek who claims that Amanda had sex with Giacomo when Amanda did not include him in her list of sex partners when confronted with the prison official's fraudulent claim she tested positive for HIV. But this doesn't eliminate van der Leek's indication that Meredith had reason to hate Amanda even though that hate was not reciprocated.

Amanda never said anything about the event in the downstairs apartment being Giacomo's birthday. How does van der Leek know that Amanda knew that at the time? She only admits going there because she met Guede there, but she didn't even remember what African country Guede came from.

Who is to say that Amanda wasn't influenced to write a musical screen play because Meredith had appeared in one? Amanda still achieved her own fame for her own accomplishment regardless of Meredith activity.

Van der Leek contradicts his own previous description of the relationship between Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito by acclaiming how quickly they became an "item." (See https://audioboom.com/posts/6310019-despicable-the-shakedown-of-amanda-knox-episode-3-8-days )

Van der Leek theorized that a book that Meredith had read had some connection with what he decided Amanda and Raffaele had done to Meredith. What kind of paranormal world does van der Leek live in? It's not reality. Meredith didn't read a book such that Amanda and Raffaele were condemned to live out.

Of course people are disturbed by the death of a beautiful young women as Meredith Kercher, but what does that have to do with Amanda Knox? Amanda wasn't at the cottage when Meredith was killed. Meredith's death does not prove that Amanda killed her. How does van der Leek contend that Amanda profited from Meredith's death any more than the guilters who wrote books trying to prove Amanda killed her did?

What's so strange about an Oprah Winfrey Book Club book having an interracial relationships? Concerning the violence in the book, is van der Leek blaming Amanda for Winfrey's choice of books to push? Amanda's choice of books would certainly be limited by the selection that was available in the prison's library.

It's nice that van der Leek didn't make the claim that other guilters do that Amanda's screen play is a copy of the video that Meredith appeared in. Maybe Amanda's screen play is about herself being in prison which would not be the theme that Meredith acted out in the video she was in, but Amanda's screen play has its own mystique and power.

Is van der Leek saying that the video Meredith appeared in predicted her death? If so, how does that predict that Amanda was the one who killed her instead of Guede? Meredith being dead does not prove that Amanda killed her.

The scenary that van der Leek speculates about Amanda from the fact that Meredith didn't happen to spend time with her on Halloween doesn't change who Amanda had always been before coming to Perugia. Amanda's friends back in Seattle have a completely different understanding of who Amanda is, but of course van der Leek considers any friends of Amanda to be part of the huge PR machine that made it possible for Amanda to escape the punishment van der Leek has decided she deserved.

Why does it matter what Sophie's dad thought about Amanda Knox? He certainly was no witness to anything.

Amanda and Raffaele didn't think to get a lawyer, but Giacomo did get a lawyer. Why did Giacomo feel more vulnerable than they? Did Giacomo know that the police targeted those who were close to the victim?

Did all the other "witnesses" go through the same scrutiny that Amanda and Raffaele did? Those other witnesses were asked about Amanda and Raffaele. Amanda and Raffaele were not asked about those other witnesses. Amanda and Raffaele were questioned in greater detail about exactly what they had been doing. More detail than most people could have remembered.

So what if Meredith had already finished her crash course in Italian that Amanda was just beginning? Most guilters claim that's all Amanda was there to study. Obviously if it was just a three week course, it couldn't have been all that Amanda was planning to do for a year.

Amanda said in her book that she was surprised that the University of Perugia was in Perugia, but that she was so interested in the School for Foreigners that she hadn't researched any further. She didn't express any preference to have gone to the "local college" instead. She wasn't there to study what van der Leek describes as proper university courses. She was there to study the Italian language and culture and to live them.

John Follain mentions nothing about Amanda going to Amsterdam. A search in True Justice for Meredith Kercher produces nothing about it. It's strange that Amanda would go to Amsterdam at the same time she went to Hamburg to visit her aunt and uncle. There are other guilters who talk about this alleged trip to Amsterdam, but nobody has any link to explain it.

Amanda did have assignments from her Italian language class. She was working on an assignments while she was waiting for Raffaele at the police station on Nov. 5, 2007. In addition to earning money, the job at Le Chic provided Amanda with an opportunity to practice her Italian. One of the things Meredith's friends complained about her was that she wanted to speak Italian at all times even when she was with English speaking people.

In her prison diary when she was wondering from whom she might have gotten AIDS, Amanda only listed one time that she had sex with Daniel DeLuna.

Van der Leek questions that Amanda had a relationship with D.J. because of a guy called Andrew Selubo, Silaba or Seliba. Van der Leek seems to think the media made a big deal out of Andrew, but with any spelling of his name suggested by van der Leek's pronunciation of it, I could not find any reference to him. The relationship really comes down to him being sort of to the side of a video of a drunken party of guys at which Amanda was present. Maybe this Andrew thought he had more of a relationship with Amanda than the other guys in the video because he went to Italy to testify for Amanda, but how does that suggest that Amanda didn't have a relationship with D.J.?

"Open relationships" are not too hard to understand in young people who are not ready to commit to marriage. The casual sex thing is difficult to understand, but it does seem strange for van der Leek to claim Amanda had difficulty forming relationships simply because she didn't want to get married. And even if it is just friendships that van der Leek is talking about, not many people really think in terms of friendships that last a lifetime anymore. People change jobs and move out of town too much for such friendships.

Even if Amanda would know how D.J. felt about her, why wouldn't she feel touched that he made a point to send message of his support to her?

Amanda Knox was not out to win a beauty contest. She was into being herself. She didn't care that people found her lacking in social graces. She was willing to find friends who were interested in her rather than some ideal she had to pretend to be. Where do Wilson and van der Leek find the authority to criticize her for that?

Wilson criticized Judge Hellmann's experience at presiding of criminal trials. Of course the praise guilters heap on the Italian judiciary system is that the judges go through extensive training and are guided by a detailed system of laws that make their decisions valid. Van der Leek even hints that this is so by claiming Judge Hellmann ran a muck of the laws in his rulings. How does Wilson's reference to experience fit into any of that? it's not like guilters really expected the wisdom in administration of the laws. Guilters expected that the laws would declare Amanda and Raffaele guilty.

Van der Leek gives credit to mob rule when Italians were so upset with the Hellmann verdict, but he is decidedly less thrilled with the shift in public opinion when it accepts that the evidence was not what it should have been and the confessions could have been coerced.

Nobody questioned that it was Raffaele's DNA that was found on the bra clasp. What was questioned was if the police had procured the sample in such a way to eliminate the possibility of contamination from outside Meredith's room, and that was not done.

There was no way to dispute that Raffaele's DNA would have been in the rest of the cottage since he had come to visit Amanda before the murder. Also, he had been in that cottage after the murder and before the discovery of Meredith's body. So even if the police only found a sample of his DNA on a cigarette butt elsewhere in the cottage, that does not eliminate that his DNA would be elsewhere in the cottage but not collected.

Where did Wilson find this report that Amanda's DNA was found on the bra clasp? Who else is saying this? It sounds like a rumor more than a fact. If this were known to the prosecutors during the trial, they certainly would have made an issue of it.

Wilson dismissed that DNA can transfer from one place to another, but there are a number of ways such transfer can occur. Dismissing that that happened because no source of Raffaele's DNA or process of transfer was identified does not eliminate that it could have happened.

Wilson had particular scorn for dust as a mode of transfer. There is nothing unreasonable about DNA being in saliva. Raffaele would have coughed or sneezed sometime while in the cottage visiting Amanda or during the time he was there after the murder before Meredith's body was found. Saliva would have sprayed out of his mouth when he coughed or sneezed. Those droplets would have fallen on the dust in the rest of the cottage outside of Meredith's room. It was documented by video that the investigators did change shoe covers and gloves when entering Meredith's room and that those shoe covers and gloves were already dirty before they picked up the bra clasp. It is not unreasonable to expect that the saliva that was on the dust on those dirty gloves transferred to the bra clasp. Also, the bra clasp was not collected where it was first found. It had been shuffled nearly a yard from where it was originally found. It is not unreasonable that the saliva on the dust of the dirty shoe covers used was transferred to the bra clasp when it was kicked around.

Also, there is the matter that the bra strap had been cut instead of the bra clasp being unfastened. There was no reason for the person cutting the bra strap to handle the bra clasp. Why would there be DNA on that bra clasp unless it was contamination?

It doesn't matter that the full DNA was found on the bra clasp. It was still an LCN sample. That would indicate that it was from contamination.

Wilson claims Amanda's DNA was found on the bra clasp quoting from http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/the_limited_dna_reviews_-_why_they_probably_wont_help_defense_and_may_/





In that article, Barbie Nadeau is quoted saying that Viscenzo Pascali while refusing to comment for her story hinted that Amanda's DNA was found on the bra clasp. Based on this third hand non-information, Wilson proceeds as though it were an established fact.

There wasn't anything for the defense to address in the possibility of Amanda's DNA being found on the bra clasp or as Stefanoni reportedly hinted being found on Meredith's bra. Wilson admits that this claim did not come up in the trial. So why would the defense bother talking about this non-issue? Since the prosecutor didn't bring evidence of it or ask Stefanoni to testify about it, it didn't exist, and it's doubtful that the defense experts Torre and Pascali ever said anything about it either.

Wilson references markers of Amanda's DNA being found on the bra clasp, but there is no record of such a result. The results that were found were associated with the Y chromosome that indicates male.

The markers related to Raffaele are still significant of nothing since the police cannot prove that contamination did not occur. It is not up to the defendant to prove where the contamination came from. It is up to the prosecution to prove it could not have come from anywhere.

The defense can bring up in appeals what they dispute in the trial. How is it damning to the defense not to respond in the appeals to a claim the prosecution did not bring up in the trial? The prosecution did not bring up the possibility of Amanda's DNA being on the bra clasp. Why would the defense ask Pascali about something the prosecution didn't present?

Since the prosecutor did not present the alleged fact of Amanda's DNA on the bra clasp, how is it evidence? Since it wasn't even confirmed, it is not even a fact.

The crime scene photos of Meredith's room do not show that the blood smears on the floor were wiped away at all. Those smears present a clear documentary to the Meredith's struggle. Guede said he used the towels to try to stop Meredith's bleeding, and that's how they appear to have been used.

It's strange that van der Leek brings up Guede's penchant for squares of toilet paper and their abundance in the crime scene, but emphasizes the unproved DNA of Amanda on the bra clasp.

The bra clasp was not unfastened. The strap was cut. There was no reason for a sample of the attacker's DNA being found on the bra clasp.

Even if it is assumed that Meredith's body were staged, there is no proof that Amanda and Raffaele did the alleged staging. It's only an assumption that Guede left before levidity set in regardless of what Guede says.

How did Amanda and Raffaele wash the clothes Meredith had been in, but leave the blood and Guede's DNA? In spite of the lack of partially cleaned areas of flooring, how were Amanda's and Raffaele's shoe prints supposed to have fit into abundance of smears and shoe prints left by the struggle between Meredith and Guede?

Where are the brush marks of the broom? Where is the bloody broom and the vacuum bag with blood in it? Was there even a vacuum? Not even bloody rags were found that could have been used in a clean-up unless Guede's toilet paper squares are considered?

What's the difference between primary DNA and transfer DNA? Aren't they composed of the same atoms? There's no reason transfer DNA would not be the full molecule, but Raffaele's DNA on the bra clasp was a LCN sample. That indicates it was transfer DNA.

There were five shoe prints on the pillowcase. The one the police originally identified as of Amanda's size was a partial shoe print for which they estimated the size. The tread pattern of that shoe print matched that of Guede's shoe. All five shoe prints were Guede's.

Amanda didn't own a pair of Nike shoes. She liked hiking shoes rather than Nike's. As far as her pictures go, her computer with all her pictures were destroyed by the Postal Police. So was Meredith's computer with all of her pictures. Also, Amanda's camera was confiscated by the police who lost it until after the trial. She didn't have that many shoes for people to remember or forget.

Monday, October 2, 2017

Notes on BBC Documentary

There are things that the BBC Documentary on Amanda Knox got right, but there are other things that were wrong or missed an interesting connection. A link to this documentary is:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erla7Ley4Tw

If this link has been disabled, try searching youtube for Amanda Knox to see if it has been reposted with another link.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Addition to the lie that Amanda Knox was called in Nov  5, there's the lie that Amanda Knox could say Patrick was innocent. She wasn't at murder to know.
 
On the BBC documentary, Patrick's comment about the text message contradicts his later position that he had fired Amanda Knox.

The police were already looking for a black man to tie #AmandaKnox to the murder. They mistook threads found in Meredith's hand for hair from a black man.
 
According to the guilter case, Amanda Knox incriminates Patrick and herself to protect Guede whom she hardly knows. Because he can retaliate? Guede implicated her anyhow.
 
Why would Amanda Knox put herself at a murder by accusing the innocent Patrick? This stinks of police coercion.
 
The footprints attributed to Amanda Knox tested negative for blood. Likely they were from bleach Filomena used for spot-cleaning. Those footprints were not proved to be Amanda's.
 
Stefanoni had to cheat to claim Meredith's DNA on knife. Enlarged sample beyond reliable result.Any stray cell would create result in lab.
 
Even with fast-track Guede would be convicted but courts could not do without an explanation of evidence against Amanda Knox. Facts aren't biased but the elaboration about the facts were.
 
By getting fast-track Guede was granted almost half his sentence reduced. Italy could not offer option to Amanda Knox without destroying its case against her. The prosecutors needed testimony to make the evidence mean anything.
 
In the Nencini appeal the motive changed from sex game to jealousy or a dirty toilet.
 
Guede contradicts the prosecution saying Meredith let him in instead of Amanda.

Guede contradicts guilters claiming he didn't go into bathroom where he got towels he used to try stopping Meredith's bleeding.
 
It was only a ruling to implicate Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. Not proved Guede had accomplices. In any case, the courts did not specify who these unknown accomplices were, but the Marasca-Bruno Motivation Report ruled that Amanda and Raffaele were not those accomplices.
 
It can be assumed Meredith's blood was present in sink, but Amanda Knox's DNA came from skin cells according to the Marasca-Bruno motivation.
 
Since it was not proved Amanda Knox's DNA came from her blood, her DNA that could be expected in that cottage anyhow proves nothing.
 
Starch was found on the knife making a lie of it being "cleaned." Starch would have absorbed blood which it had not.
 
Previous tests finding Meredith's DNA do question that the over-enlargement of the knife sample didn't just find residual Meredith DNA.
 
Since the bra strap was cut rather than unfastened, why would anything but contamination DNA be on bra clasp?
 
Lack of procedures to preclude contamination of the bra clasp sample make it worthless as DNA evidence.
 
The bra clasp DNA sample is also LCN further indicating it is contamination.
 
The BBC documentary ends with Kercher's wondering why the trial wasn't more about Meredith. Meredith was not trial. Amanda and Raffaele were.

Monday, September 18, 2017

Despicable shakedown of Amanda Knox--Use of justice

https://audioboom.com/posts/6339333-despicable-the-shakedown-of-amanda-knox-episode-4-is-the-italian-justice-system-deficient

It's amazing that van der Leek should use the concept of a maze to describe the defense of Amanda Knox, because that's exactly how to describe the prosecution of Amanda Knox.

Van der Leek complains about all the chatter that went on when Amanda spoke to her parents while in prison. However legal it was for the Italian police secretly to record these conversations, van der Leek is intruding on private conversations. it's not Amanda's fault that he has to piece together what he decided to use against her.

Van der Leek admits that he expected that Amanda and her parents were speaking in code on some subjects.

Van der Leek ignores the codes of law of Greeks, Israelites, and Sumerians that preceded Roman law. It's also questionable that Napoleonic Code derived from Roman law.

English common law was indeed built on reasonable precedent that had nothing to do with Roman law. All Rome had to do with it was that Latin terms were superimposed onto English common law.

U.S. law in its various versions according to which state or the Federal government it pertains to is derived from English common law after references to the monarchy was deleted from it.

There is no way that Italian law code relates directly to U.S. law at all. Much of the legal maze Amanda had to face was from these differences. Whether the U.S. or the Italian judiciaries are defective compared to each other, they do function completely differently from each other. The Italian judiciary is inquisitorial and the U.S. judiciary is adversarial.

The most notable difference between the U.S. judiciary and the Italian judiciary is that an acquittal in the trial court ends the trial, but in the Italian judiciary, a trial court acquittal goes to appeals anyhow.

Another part of this same difference is that if the state whether judge or prosecutor makes a mistake in a U.S. trial court that leads to an acquittal, the trial is still over. In Italy the appeals court can throw the case back to trial court even though it's not the defendant's fault the state made a mistake.

Both these differences have to do with the adversarial nature of the U.S. judiciary and the inquisitorial nature of the Italian judiciary.

Another difference having to do with the adversarial nature of the U.S. judiciary and the inquisitorial nature of Italian law has to do with how evidence is entered into the trial. In the U.S. judiciary, both prosecution and defense can enter evidence. In the Italian judiciary, only the prosecution can enter evidence.

In the U.S. judiciary, there are rules that govern what can be entered as evidence and both the prosecution and the defense can use those rules to challenge the entry of evidence by the other.

In Italy the judge has a rather broad discretion as to what can be entered as evidence. Since the judiciary is inquisitorial, the judge inquires about anything and decides importance later. So for Amanda Knox, her sex life was admitted as evidence, but the judge ruled the semen on the pillow would not be tested to protect  Meredith Kercher's reputation. Also, the judge decided there was no reason to test the glass of the broken window to determine the direction it was broken.

Another difference between the U.S. judiciary and the Italian judiciary is that the U.S. jury deliberates independently from the judge whereas the so-called Italian jury includes the judges.

However much the U.S. judge may instruct the jury before they go into deliberation, the only thing U.S. law requires of the jury is that they consider the law and the evidence. Neither judge nor law can tell the jurors what to think about the law and the evidence.

In the judges panel which is the so-called Italian jury, the regular judges are right there telling the lay judges what the Italian law requires them to think about the evidence.

A third difference between the U.S. judiciary and the Italian judiciary is that when a case goes to appeal in the U.S., the sentence can be lightened, but it cannot be made more severe. In Italy, the sentence can be made more severe. The adversarial nature of common law required that the individual have a chance to defend him or herself, while inquisitorial nature of Italian law requires the integrity of the state's authority to impose justice.

Going back to the concept of the jury, U.S. Founding Fathers insisted on the institution of the jury as a protection against bad laws. The jury does not have to abide by a law they don't like. The U.S. jury is an institution older than the U.S. Constitution and U.S. laws. The U.S. jury has the right to disregard the law, and unlike the Italian judges panel, the U.S. jury doesn't have to give a reason why. Of course the Italian judges panel does not have the right to disregard a law no matter how unethical it is.

Whether the three tier attempt at justice is valid or not, the 5th Chamber's acquittal is finally getting it right. Complaining about the repeated appeals court as double jeopardy doesn't make agreement with the 5th chamber's acquittal acceptance of double jeopardy. That's nonsense. The hypocrisy of guilters is that they claim the 5th Chamber acquitted in violation of the law. The 5th Chamber did revalidates the findings of the Hellmann court concerning the evidence, but what is strange is the guilter insistence that neither the 5th Chamber nor the Hellmann court could make rulings on whether evidence was valid or not.

Since it wasn't left to an independent jury to decide the validity of the evidence, how can appealing courts and the Supreme Court be denied the authority to consider this vital part of the trial? After all, the Italian judiciary is supposed to have been a three tier trial.

I did debate with van der Leek how different the Italian judiciary was. But in answer to Wilson's question as well as to van der Leek's question at the time, why are you still persecuting Amanda and Raffaele for crimes they didn't commit?

Nencini's comment about the case is not as publicized as the guilters misquoting something Hellmann said about his court's findings. I would hope that Nencini had misgivings about his role in the false accusations against Amanda and Raffaele.

I think it was ill-advised of Amanda Knox to send the email to Nencini since it is used by guilters to incriminate her However, I do think that Amanda's email demonstrates her innocence in that she never considered that it would be used against her. If she were the hardened criminal the guilters claim she is, she would never have sent it.

Van der Leek ignores that in all of her previous attempts to be heard were not evaluated from any other viewpoint but that she was guilty as they charged her. Van der Leek cannot even imagine that Amanda Knox had or has a valid message.

If guilters extol the benevolence of the Italian judicial system, how can van der Leek criticize Raffaele for utilizing his rights to make spontaneous declarations that cannot be challenged? Regardless of Roman Law, that is not allowed in the U.S.

How does van der Leek not understand the difference between expressing herself against prosecutors who are trained to tear apart the innocent testimony of defendants and Amanda Knox's writing a book that expressed what she went through without a prosecutor questioning her every statement. It's not as though her book was not used against her, but it was that before she could leave Italy, she didn't have the luxury to speak her mind with the same abandon the prosecutors did. After all, Amanda was still in training to be a creative writer.

Van der Leek said Nencini implied that there was a race factor and that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito had nothing better to do that night but kill Meredith Kercher. Is this the unfounded bias that Nencini relied on? Even if Nencini said it, it  proved nothing.

So unless Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito had something more important than their interest in each other which has been shown to have been significant, van der Leek declares they had to have gone to kill Meredith instead? That's a far-reaching stretch and leap. That is an unreasonable assumption if I've ever heard of one.

Jurors can be swayed by a sufficiently repulsive motive to bridge the gap between a lack of convincing evidence and conviction, but where is that convincing motive in this case?  Van der Leek insists that because Amanda and Raffaele lacked some purposeful activity for the night, they chose to kill Meredith Kercher. That's really bizarre reasoning, and it makes as little sense as a sex game gone wrong or the supposed animosity towards Meredith. In particular the alleged animosity is supposedly expressed by Meredith rather than Amanda, and is only projected onto Amanda through ridiculous and unproved psychological assumptions.

If it wasn't protocol for Nencini to imply something about his forthcoming motivation report before it was published, what is the ethicacy of him commenting on the case in partial before Amanda's and Raffaele's lawyers could examine it for deficiency?

So now van der Leek would have us believe that most readers are incapable of seeing through the propaganda of abusive public relations? What about the negative public relations of the guilters? Are the sheep too stupid to recognize that also?

Wilson admitted that in her First Memorandum, Amanda Knox immediately accused the police of abusing her within hours of signing the 5:45 coerced statement. And somehow, the guilters claim Amanda didn't make this charge until way too late for it to matter. When was Amanda supposed to object when the police were insisting she was lying that she did not go to the murder with Patrick? Then they charged her with slander for agreeing with them.

Remarkable that Wilson includes the audio of Amanda knox commenting on what really happened to her during the abusive interrogation. Did Wilson assume that this was a lie? Why?

Van der Leek comments about how Amanda has commented on being struck during interrogation because the police didn't like her answer, and van der Leek finds it strange that Amanda comes back with the allegation that a prison official tried to seduce her? This same prison official had regular interviews with Amanda trying to get her to say something that could be used against her.

Amanda's parents did express concern about the misconduct of this prison official, but they knew that Amanda had self-confidence other prisoners would not have for resisting it. And though this intercepted conversation came early in her incarceration, that doesn't mean this prison official stopped trying when she didn't respond. That Amanda makes fun of the prison official is just her way of dealing with the stress of what he's doing. She isn't ignoring the seriousness of the harassment.

How could van der Leek expect Amanda or her parents to complain to the authorities about the misconduct when the prison official would charge them with slander if they did? Van der Leek even played the part of the intercepted conversation where Amanda said her lawyers told her it would do no good, but van der Leek was more interested in foul language Amanda might have used.

What's so strange about Amanda's parents warning her Seattle friends not to speak directly to the media? Whatever those friends may have said to the media about Amanda was bound to have been completely distorted when publicized. Guilters love to misuse a bit of fact to create nonsense against Amanda.

How could Amanda's stepfather email her for the password to her MySpace account? Prisoners don't have access to the Internet. She sure wasn't going to risk sending her password through the mail to him. No telling what the prison officials would have done with it when they read her letter before letting it be mailed.

Van der Leek calls questions about the case against Amanda a maze to distract people from the path he sees to Amanda's guilt. But guilters have constructed this elaborate maze to mislead people from the simple truth that Amanda had nothing to do with Meredith's death.

The key to understanding the distraction van der Leek has created is that every fact he says shows her guilt has to be explained with the assumption that she is guilty.

Despicable shakedown of Amanda Knox--8 days

https://audioboom.com/posts/6310019-despicable-the-shakedown-of-amanda-knox-episode-3-8-days

Circumstantial evidence only has value when there is only one way possible to understand it. Dismissing innocuous meanings for the circumstances does not make the preferred understanding of the circumstances any more real.

What is a genuine relationship? How does van der Leek define what were genuine relationships for Amanda Knox? Why would his context be genuine with hers?

Amanda Knox didn't ask for the position her uncle set up for her, and it would appear that there was no real job for her to do anyhow. She wanted an experience in Italy. So why does van der Leek think she had an obligation to her uncle to undergo an experience in Germany?

What is this problem with her family that van der Leek is talking about? Is he trying to say that coming from a divorced family made it difficult for Amanda to relate to Meredith? Meredith came from a divorced family also.

If van der Leek refers to those people she grew up with who didn't accept her as being the problem with genuine relations, why dwell on those elitist people and not the other outcasts she did find friendships with?

Where did van der Leek get the idea that Amanda had problems with her own father or mother? Isn't that a figment of his own overactive mind?

How did van der Leek get the idea that Amanda was trying too hard to please others? She was oblivious to the expectations of others, and that's what Meredith's friends complained about.

Amanda may have had exaggerated expectations of what her experience in Italy was going to mean, but don't we all have high expectations in any endeavor we undertake?

I never understood why the event of the kiss was dragged out by the media using slow-motion video until van der Leek emphasized the hickey that supposedly was visible at this time. Regardless of van der Leek's characterization of it, the mark on Amanda's neck is a bruise instead of a cut or scratch. There is a police photo showing this.

Whether van der Leek understands it or not, circumstantial evidence is analyzed the same way that forensic evidence is. It has to prove something. Just because he calls something circumstantial evidence doesn't mean it proves anything any more than calling a material fact a forensic evidence means it proves anything.

Van der Leek admits that it's reasonable interpretation of circumstantial evidence that makes the difference, but doesn't admit that he is restricting what he accepts as reasonable interpretation of those circumstances.

When the prosecution has to explain what is their reasonable interpretation of so many facts used as evidence, where is the assurance that any of it means anything?

When the guilters bring in comparisons to other highly publicized trials that resulted in public outrage, what's the comparison that is being forced on Amanda Knox? Shouldn't she have been given an unbiased consideration?

Is there some divine reason that van der Leek can say that there is no reasonable explanation for the circumstantial evidence he accused Amanda Knox with?

Whether van der Leek likes it or not, the simplest explanation of Meredith Kercher's murder is that Rudy Guede did it, Amanda Knox was blamed for her lifestyle, and Raffaele Sollecito was blamed because he was her alibi.

What's ridiculous about the argument that Amanda Knox and
Raffaele Sollecito could not have committed Guede's crimes against Meredith because they were sleeping? That's the natural progression of the marijuana that they had smoked. Marijuana doesn't cause people to go out searching for anything. It makes them stare into space.

Did van der Leek really think there was trouble between Amanda and Raffaele because Raffaele stayed home working on his thesis while Amanda went on looking for partying? Even if Amanda did have time apart from Raffaele to have a girls' talk with Filomena over the ethics of being with Raffaele after taking a break from DJ, how does any of this indicate "something brewing" in Amanda's relationship with Raffaele?

Why does spending nights with Raffaele indicate that there was any problems with her flatmates and Meredith in particular? Her flatmates are women and Raffaele is a man. It's pretty obvious from her relationship with Raffaele that Amanda is not a Lesbian.

Why would Amanda be miffed just because one of the guys downstairs asked Meredith to water his marijuana plants? Amanda's boyfriend didn't live downstairs, but Meredith's boyfriend did.

It's total speculation that Amanda thought her relationships with her flatmates was being "poisoned." The Amanda's alleged lack of social skills would have made her oblivious to deteriorated relations if there had been such.

Amanda never made promises of fidelity to any of her boyfriends. Is Wilson's comment about all the men Amanda was texting while she was involved with Raffaele part of the bias against Amanda for this sexual independence?

Wilson advanced the speculation that Raffaele was more serious about Amanda than Amanda was with him. It's true that Amanda was not agreeing to marry him, but why would that worry Raffaele since she was eager to have sex with him? There is absolutely no indication that Amanda was trying to use sex to manipulate Raffaele.

Amanda's campaign of casual sex sounds bizarre, but more so in that her description of what she wanted to achieve with sex is not conquest. Her idea of adult sexual behavior did not include entangling emotions.

That Amanda expressed the lack of grief experience for knowing how to comfort Raffaele when he was talking about the death of his mother didn't stop her from doing just that. She wrote that she hurt for him meaning that she experienced his pain through his telling of it. She lay her head on his chest to comfort him with her presence. For someone who is alleged to have lacked social skills, Amanda did very well.

Van der Leek makes unfounded claims about Amanda's father abandoning her when he divorced her mother and about her mother's misplaced affections when her mother remarried, and about the alienation from her step-dad. These things did not happen.

Van der Leek's speculation that Amanda was in Italy to escape her family life is ridiculous. She was there to learn Italian and to absorb Italian culture.

Rudy Guede may have been a drug dealer, but he had no relationship with Amanda. It's pure speculation that Amanda took drugs that Guede provided her. Marijuana was available from her flatmates and from Raffaele, and that's all there is evidence that Amanda was involved with.

There is absolutely no evidence that Amanda slept with Rudy Guede. He may have wanted an affair with her, but they were only in each other's presence the one time with the downstairs guys and the time Guede was a customer at the bar where Amanda worked.

This myspace post van der Leek cited about Amanda saying she met Guede only said she had met a black man when she first got to Perugia. The post does not give this black man's name. Amanda never denied having met Guede, but she always denied having any relationship with him.

Regardless of Guede's avowed intention to have an affair with Amanda, there is no evidence of that affair. Nobody knew about this alleged affair than they did about the date Guede claimed he arranged with Meredith.

In his deposition, Daniel DeLuna did not mention having sex with Amanda on Oct. 27, 2007. He said they had sex on Oct. 20, 2007 and that he went back to the cottage for a few minutes to say goodby before going back to Rome.

If Amanda's and Raffaele's affair was over before the murder, what was all the kissing outside the cottage and in the police station all about?

What does Amanda's sex life have to do with anything? Is it because she is not ashamed of having had sex with multiple men? It's alright for a man to have multiple and overlapping sexual relationships before marriage, but somehow lack of innocence in sex makes Amanda guilty of murder?

Wilson suggested that somehow Raffaele's innocence of sex made him susceptible to manipulation that has never been proved Amanda committed.

Van der Leek has to be kidding to draw any inference from the Burning Man phenominun when talking about Amanda or Raffaele. Like with any mass grouping of artists, there are going to be drugs, but what does that have to do with people curious about the celebration?

That Raffaele had been involved with cocaine earlier in his life doesn't prove he was using it when he met Amanda. This inference is bias instead of evidence.

How do we know that van der Leek is not hooked on drugs since he had friends who died from drug use? His assumption about Amanda's and Raffaele's drug use from association may be reflected in van der Leek's own experience.

Once a liar, always a liar? How does van der Leek know that? Unless you can prove someone really doesn't care about the feelings of others, that's not true. There has never been proof that Amanda or Raffaele lacked the fundamental emotions of normal people.

Regardless of what guiilters claim about Raffaele, Amanda has never turned against Raffaele. She expressed confusion on being told Raffaele had given evidence against her, but she never accused him of anything.

Likewise, Raffaele has always said that Amanda was innocent even when he was coaxed into disclaiming his alibi for her.

Whether Wilson likes it or not, her discussion of Amanda Knox's "behavior" is just an excuse to call her guilty without evidence.

Generally speaking, Wilson's contention that Raffaele's throwing Amanda under the bus is based on Amanda's 1:45 and 5:45 statements not saying he was at the murder. His defense also pointed out that evidence used against her didn't apply to her. Also, there is the plausibility that Raffaele was only charged with murder because he was Amanda's alibi. The actions of the police in first accusing Raffaele on the basis of Guede's footprints, and then going back to find the bra clasp with compromised DNA indicates that this is correct.

Since there is no comparison between the motives that were alleged for Amanda to have wanted to kill Meredith and the complete lack of motive attributed to Raffaele, it is logical that Raffaele's lawyers would argue that Raffaele should have been tried separately. This has nothing to do with Raffaele's opinion of whether or not Amanda killed or did not kill Meredith. It also has nothing to do with Amanda's opinion of Raffaele since they are motives that were superimposed on the expectations of Amanda without her approval.

Wilson admitted that Raffaele stated that his legal defense should not be interpretted as an indictment of Amanda. Hasn't that false accusation already been expressed in this podcast?

Van der Leek did admit that Raffaele's attorney worked to defend Amanda as well.

There may have been four defense lawyers between Amanda and Raffaele, but there was a lawyer for the Kerchers and also one for Patrick Lamumba in addition to the prosecution. That's still four against four.

How does Amanda's and Raffaele's behavior being different from the other witnesses waiting in the police station supposed to prove their guilt? There was nothing illegal about their behavior. So what difference does it make that people thought it was inappropriate? Without asking them the reasons for their behavior, it is only an assumption why they behaved that way. Indeed, the behavior thought so strange had to do with Amanda feeling upset and needing to calm down. They just had a different way of doing it.

Also, Amanda's and Raffaele's experience at the cottage was different from that of the others in that Amanda and Raffaele had been crowded out of a view into Meredith's room. Of course they were upset at being told things about the murder, but they didn't have the horrible image in their memory of seeing the murder scene. There really was no reason to expect them to react the same way.

Before the rest of the witnesses got to the cottage, Amanda and Raffaele had been upset by the suspected burglary. They did react with emotion before the others got there. Amanda and Raffaele had already experienced panic for Meredith since they didn't know what had happened to her. It's a bit much to expect them to stay in such a state of alert hysteria long after the worst had been discovered.

It did dawn on Amanda in the days that followed that she could have been the one home instead of Meredith when the murderer got there. That's the reason she insisted on accompanying Raffaele to the police station the evening of Nov. 5th when only he was called back for questioning. She was afraid to be alone or to go home alone.

What other people in Perugia suspect about Amanda is not evidence. While suspicion is irrelevant, it is a big thing since it is bias.

Amanda did express anger at the murderer for slashing Meredith's throat and letting her bleed to death. Amanda did express grief when the police took her to the cottage to look at knives and she broke down in uncontrollable crying. Of course these expressions of emotion were taken as proof of guilt instead of grief. So is it also proof of guilt that she tried not to think about the horrible event?

It's strange how van der Leek went on about how Amanda didn't have genuine relationships because of the repression she must have felt over her parents divorcing and remarrying, but thinks it's odd that Amanda didn't react to the murder with the same visible emotion as Filomena did. Given the lack of social skills guilters alleged Amanda suffered from, why is it surprising that the impact of the murder might not have affected Amanda with the immediacy it affected others? Amanda did cry for her friend when Altieri told her and Raffaele that Meredith's throat had been slashed. This occurred while Altieri was driving them from the cottage to the police station.

It puzzles me over the responsibility guilters expect of Amanda for the murder of Meredith Kercher, and they take no responsibility for how they pervert circumstances into accusations against Amanda. And the excuse Wilson gives is that everyone thinks Amanda is guilty. Amanda did not prompt Guede to kill Meredith. She did not participate in the murder. She didn't know it was occurring.

So what is she supposed to take responsibility for? All van der Leek seems to have for her to be responsible for is that she behaved differently from other people.