Amanda's Book Due Out April 30, 2013

Sunday, December 12, 2010

Amanda Knox Pours Her Heart Out At Appeals Hearing

December 11, 2010- Amanda Knox made a heart rending statement at the start of today's hearing in Perugia. Knox who does not like contention rarely defended herself in the past, no doubt believing that justice was enough. But as she stated today, justice had clearly failed her. So today she poured her heart out to the court in a statement that lasted about 18 minutes. Speaking in Italian, she addressed a variety of issues- from her wrongful conviction to her sorrow for the members of Meredith's family. At times she was clearly overcome with emotion and wept, but forced herself to go on. One rather tasteless incident during Amanda's statement occurred when the Kercher lawyer left the courtroom, stating that he wasn't interested in what she had to say. No doubt a strategic move to try and upstage Knox and put a fly in the soup. It didn't matter. Anyone with any heart at all could see that this young woman was speaking from her gut; laying her soul bare.

This is a new time. Mignini's magic show of illusion is not on the agenda. That was then- this is now. And that goes for anyone who stands to profit from Amanda losing her appeal. All the lawsuits and the lawyer who leads them. To all the journalists who milked this case to sell the news at the expense of a young woman's life. To the corrupt prosecutor who could not contain his own fantasies at the expense of justice. To all those disillusioned souls who would rather believe a lie than the truth. You should be ashamed of yourselves.

As I said in the past I will place my trust in the appeals court to do the right thing based on the evidence. Hopefully the appeals court will examine all the evidence that is called into question. How could this court condemn Amanda with no evidence, with no motive, with flawed forensics. A woman who has never had a history of violence. The vast majority of the people who are aware of this case know that Amanda is innocent. And the world will be watching.

Amanda Knox told the truth this morning- she gave it from her heart. Among all the lies and misconceptions in this case- she told the truth- she was the light. But if that is not enough with all the evidence that proves her innocent of this crime, then I have only this quote from the Bible to offer:
         "And the light shined in the darkness, yet the darkness comprehended it not"

19 comments:

Anonymous said...

I'm just now taking a look at this affair, and am having a hard time making sense of it. Perhaps someone will be kind enough to enlighten me on a couple of points. I'm inclined to agree that most of the forensic evidenhce and witness testimony is suspect. It's Amanda's account of what happened on the day the crime was discovered that troubles me. As I understand it, she discovered that morning that the front door of the "cottage" had been left unlocked. At some point subsequent, she and her boy friend discovered that a window in one of the bedrooms had been shattered. Wht would she not, at this point, become concerned about Meredith? Did she bang on Meridith's door or call out for her? Would she not have become concerned, if not alarmed, upon ascertaining that the door to Meredith's room was locked? Did she attempt to contact Meredith by cell phone? When she and her boy friend came in contact with the police, why did they not express concern about Meredith's safety? This is particularly hard to understand when, as I follow it, they were told that her cell phones had been discovered. Unless I'm missing something (and I probably am), all this would support a rational inference that they did not want the body to be discovered.

Saint_Michael1 said...

Hello- I'll clear a few things up for you. Since your questions are directed to the day Meredith's body was discovered I will address that time period. First off you have to realize that if Amanda did not want the body discovered- why would she go back to the house and have her boyfriend call the police. You should also take into consideration that not all the things you mentioned were discovered at the same time. Amanda did not notice the broken window until she went back to the house the 2nd time with her boyfriend and it was then that he called the police. After see discovered there was a break-in she did start banging on Meredith's door but she would have no way of knowing if Meredith was actually in the room. Amanda did call both Meredith's phones and she called another room mate also about the break-in. That room mate arrived with a couple of her male friends shortly after the police got there. And the male friends broke down the door. Of course Amanda was concerned due to the break in, but I don't think she was thinking the worst. If she had killed Meredith and did not want the body discovered which you say is a "rational inference"- why would she go back to the house at all and have her boyfriend call the police. Why wouldn't they have just gone to Gubbio as they had planned on instead of placing themselves at the scene of the crime. It would have been much better for them if they were guilty to have just gone on their trip and it would have been one of the other room mates who would have discovered the break-in etc... and thereby not placing themselves in the position of being the first to stumble on the crime scene. Since Amanda is known to be a rather intelligent person- if she was guilty I do not think this is what she would have done. Exactly what Amanda did that morning and what was going through her mind and particularly how concerned she was about Meredith can not be proven one way or another. Common sense however dictates that two intelligent people as Amanda and Raffaele are known to be simply would not have placed themselves in that position if they were guilty. What really compounds the problem in understanding that morning is the fact that you can not trust what the police have said on the matter and the same goes for the prosecutor who had everything twisted around from the very beginning. If you pull up the separate page "Motivation report In Focus" which is located at the top right on the home page you will find quite a bit of information on the morning in question including the so-called staged break-in. Thanks for commenting.

Anonymous said...

I appreciate your helping untangle all this. I would not want to be understood as embracing the prosecution's theory of the case. Still, I have to wonder whether, upon failing to get a response from Meredith at her locked door, having already discovered the broken window, Amanda should not immediately have suspected "foul play," and so alerted the police immediately. I've not seen transcripts of the calls the boy friend made to the carabinieri (sp?), or of the dialogue with the--is it "postal authorities"? The accounts I've read, however, seem to indicate that no alarm about Meredith was expressed in these communications. And it seems far from clear that Amanda had the option of dismissing the "postal authorities" on the front steps. Would they not have insisted on personal contact with the owner of the devices? Regretably, the evidence relating to whether the "postal authorities" presented themselves before the calls to the police were made seems to be in dispute.

Saint_Michael1 said...

How would Amanda have known for certain if Meredith was in her room or not. Meredith was known to have locked her bedroom door when she was away somewhere but not all the time. As Amanda had stated she did suspect something was wrong- particularly after seeing the broken window, but to automatically suspect foul play would depend on the person- some might, others might not suspect the worst. The point is- they did call the police, however the time is a question mark for some people. Others claim that the video camera across the street which had a time clock use this to gage the time but even that time has been called into question as the clock was either slow or fast but not on the button.
I really have not gone over that particular point much because to me it not one of the big issues in this case. I have concerned myself mostly with the DNA evidence and also the time of death- which the original trial court got wrong.
You are correct in saying that no concern for Meredith was expressed but the real question is- what could they have said? They didn't even know for a fact if Meredith was in her room. Amanda did express concern to the room mate she called however and that is why the room mate returned to the flat as soon as she could.
I'll put this into 2 different replies as there is a word limit for comments

Saint_Michael1 said...

To continue- This is a complex case, in part because of the misinformation and shady tactics used by the prosecution. I think you are looking for evidence to go one way or another on this. No one can make up another person's mind but I will tell you why I personally believe Knox is totally innocent of this crime.
First- there was no evidence of Amanda being in the room where Meredith was killed, and since there was a brawl that had taken place in there it is just about impossible for Amanda to have been involved but left no trace of herself.
The time of death is actually just about 9:30pm local time and this is based on digestion- an extreme far point for time would be 10pm. It is a known fact that Raffaele was on his computer at 9:26pm and this is supported by documentation. In other words he was home while Meredith was being killed and Amanda was with him as he has stated and her also.
Add to this that there is no motive for the crime and the fact that Amanda has never display violence in her life- this is more than just slightly meaningful. When you put it all together and also know that the prosecution's case was based on fantasy, backed with foolish witnesses and bad investigative techniques- What to you think? Guilty? Not me.
Watch what happens at the appeals hearings. I don't think this new judge and jury likes the smell of this case- and it's going to get interesting.

Anonymous said...

"Poured her heart out" my foot. She's just putting on a big act (and not a very good one at that).

Saint_Michael1 said...

You are entitled to your opinion but I don't agree. I don't think she could have faked that if her life depended on it- she's pretty burnt out. Considering that more than a few people in that courtroom were choking up I think she was generally taken as sincere. But if you want to give someone an oscar for a performance - give it to Maresca.

Anonymous said...

"Anonymous" seems to be a favorite handle. I'll henceforth go by Anonymous1.

Even with benefit of your corrections and clarifications, and putting all questionable evidence aside, I still have great difficulty with all this. I've been looking at a transcript of Raffaele's call to the carabinieri, which seems to be confirmed by a scratchy audio clip. Some excerpts:

sono anche macchie di sangue in bagno

c'e un mucchio di sangue

Il problema e che c'e la porta chiusa

non risponde de nessuna parte

Bringing my fractured Latin to bear on this, it seems clear enough that Raffaele did not think the blood stains inconsequential, and that actual or purported concern for Meredith prompted his call. He also mentions the broken window, and says elsewhere that he noticed it immediately. Why did not Amanda call the police at once, to report these ominous observances? Instead, she decided to return to Raffale's place, to have a tete-a-tete with him. What to do, what to do? This from a fan of CSI. When viewed against the backdrop of the curious memory lapses of both Amanda and Raffaele, and their shifting testimony, I have trouble arriving at the firm conviction they have told everything they know.

Saint_Michael1 said...

To Anonymous1- Do not forget that Amanda did not see the broken window the first time she went back to the house. She was concerned enough by the door being open and the blood spots in the bathroom to go and get Raffaele. She had him call on the second trip back there after they discovered the broken window. Amanda at this time did not have a command of the Italian language so why try to call the police herself. The fact that she reported it to Raffaele and brought him back to the house shows that she had some concern with this- What seems to be a matter of opinion is- how much concern she should have had. Some people seem to think that she should have been convinced of foul play on her first appearance at the flat. Why would she think the absolute worse before she had even seen the broken window- which she did not see until her 2nd trip back with Raffaele?
When all the facts all not known it seems to leave a lot of room for speculation. As far as the so-called 'memory lapses"- that did not occur until after the police started to apply pressure to both of them. From what I have learned about Italian police tactics and the fact that no one except those present the night of questioning know what went on in that room I am not going to take as fact anything the police have to say as concerns this case. Therefore- feel free to speculate. Thanks for commenting.

Saint_Michael1 said...

To Inconsistanant 1 2 3 Anonymous- I did not publish your comment because as I often stated- this site will not become a billboard for lies and misinformation. What you had stated as facts are not facts at all, but rather misinformation and myths that have over time been proven false. You either have a very poor understanding of this case or you are simply trying to use this site to post misinformation with the intent to mislead people. Not on this site.

Anonymous said...

Anon1 again. I'm going to accept your invitation to continue to speculate, as long as you're quite sure my doing so will not exercise your patience overmuch.

Raffaele says the door to Filomena's room was open, and he saw the broken window and disorder as soon as he and Amanda entered the place. Amanda had earlier that morning visited two bathrooms and her own room. How could she have missed the broken window? But enough of that.

I've spent much of the day trying to track the changes in Amanda's and Raffaele's early testimony. I surmise they started off on the same page. Then Raffaele suddenly recants, claiming that Amanda left him at 9:00, to meet with "friends" at Le Chic. Do you have a theory to account for this unchivalrous about face? Then Amanda, as best as I can puzzle it out, confronted with Raffaele's betrayal, soars off into this scenario about Lumumba. Ok, she was stressed, and had been whacked on the head. But do you not find her subsequent -written- clarification, and partial retraction, extraordinary? I mean, this business about meeting up with Lumumba at a basketball court (frequented, presumably, by Guede), and then later discussing with Lumumba her contacts with the police. Most curious. Too curious.

I've been trying to ascertain, to no avail, when defense lawyers first insinuated themselves into this case.

Saint_Michael1 said...

To Anon1- I think that your difficulty getting a grip on this stems from a possible assumption on your part that the police reports can be taken at face value- I don't think they can be. And it is the police who are at the bottom of these so-called alibi shifts.
You are correct in saying they started out on the same page, but why would they change their stories? Well let's speculate on that a bit. It is a fact that their stories were identical until the night of Amanda's intense questioning by the police, with Raffaele being questioned separately at the same time. So the stories were the same up until the police pressure. Are you getting it yet? Police pressure and police interpretation of the questioning- which of course, amazingly, was not taped, as it should have been under Italian law- I wonder why?
So the real question in my mind is not why they changed their stories, but rather, what did the police do to make them change their stories. According to Amanda, she was tired and stressed, and said that the police were threatening her with 30 years in prison. That she would never see her family again. Calling her a stupid liar and yelling at her in Italian- a language she did not understand well at that time. And top that off with some physical abuse and I think you have the perfect situation for giving a false confession. And if they were doing that to Amanda I think you can take it to the bank they were doing that or more to Raffaele. One well known police tactic is to pit one against the other by telling lies- such as- well your buddy in the next room just ratted you out so you might as well change your story or get 30 years in jail. Like Amanda has stated-she had never been that scared in her life.
Read up on false confessions and how they are obtained and you will see this is the perfect fit for police manipulated confessions. The question should not be if it was noble or not to give a false statement- but rather, is it human, and I think it was quite human under the circumstances- particularly for a tired, abused and scared 20 year old girl. The shame falls not on Amanda Knox, but on the Perugia police.

Saint_Michael1 said...

To Anon1- About Amanda not noticing the broken window- She would have had to go into Filomena's room to see that and she did not until she came back with Raffaele, and then the both of them checked out the entire house, and then called the police. It was the broken window more than anything that led to the police call as then it was clear that someone had broken into the house.

Anonymous said...

Anon1
So Raffaele, a healthy, well-educated, well-off young man of 23, was reduced to a sniveling blob of equivocations and contradictions by being disrobed and deprived of his shoes? To this day, he has said nothing that rings of the whole truth. Does not this business about a drug induced stupor, allowing him to avoid committing himself on the crucial facts, seem a bit too convenient? It's been several decades since I "rolled a joint," but I am satisfied, from both experience and observation, that marijuana does not have the catastrophic effect on short-term memory claimed by Raffaele. Do you have any information at all about when he first managed to confer with a lawyer? It would also be interesting to know if either he or Amanda had had any contacts with Guede before this incident. I've come across conflicting accounts.

Do you really suppose that an Italian court of appeals can be induced, or even bullied, into agreeing that one can't believe "anything" the police say, or what suspects say (and write) while in their custody?

Incidentally, I see that Amanda is frequently described as "fluent" in her "spontaneous declarations."

Saint_Michael1 said...

Yes of courses she is fluent in Italian after 3 years in an Italian prison. However it has become clear to me that you are either Harry Rag posing as a normal person or you are just a clone from one of those infamous anti-Amanda sites who has no intention of changing your views- regardless of what the truth is. Read my most recent post there pal and when you find yourself wondering "Geez, it the water rising? Or is the ship sinking? Think of what you missed in the way of truth. Now get off my site- you're bad news.

Anonymous said...

I'm curious. You say here that her speech was 17 minutes, however, her own stepfather says it was a half hour or longer in an article by Steve Shay. I tend to believe the relative of the accused.

Anonymous said...

Mignini is brave, filled with courage. He has walked through the cottage. He went to the Questura the night of Amanda's questioning. He's not a dupe to the police. He is an expert himself. He is a good judge of character.

How do you know what Mignini has seen while delving into this case? he could talk with Laura and Philomena, with Silenzi and all the boys downstairs. He could hear from people even in Bari who knew Sollecito since youth. He could talk to insiders and local Perugians who really know the score. He could examine documents and lab results and get private second opinions. He could recall police for second and third questioning about what they'd seen firsthand when they had Amanda in custody. He has files and access to everything pertinent to this case and he is after the truth, not a conviction unless warranted.

Mignini is patient, persevering and filled with a sense of duty and comportment, unlike some people we know. He has proved himself for years. He continues to be married and raise his 4 daughters with a decent homelife, he goes to church and he visits his elderly mother regularly. His virtue is not in question.

Do not be blind to the people born to rise in their communities as leaders because of superior character traits. They may not agree with you, but you should be glad Mignini "hates evil" and is not easily blinded by a pretty face.

Amanda's the wild one, out of control.

Saint_Michael1 said...

Is this really important? An exact quote from my post states "about 18 minutes". Some sources say 18 minutes, other say 20 minutes and some say 30 minutes. I really don't think at the time anyone pulled out a stop watch. Whether she spoke for 18 minutes or 25 minutes- that wasn't the main topic of the post.

Saint_Michael1 said...

Mignini is brave and filled with courage??? Wow. My compliments on your command of the English language. Are we talking about the same person? Are you referring to that big bully who suffers from satanic delusions. The same Mignini who was convicted and given a 16 month suspended sentence for abusing his powers- bugging the phones of journalists etc... The same guy who directed the police in the Knox investigation? The guy who has people thrown in prison if they oppose him (mario spezi). The guy who leaked false information to the media in the Knox case. Oh yeah, he's a sweetheart.

Note

This forum is not endorsed by Amanda Knox nor her family or legal council. It is an independent venture for the purpose of an open public forum on Amanda's pending appeal in Italy. It is for educational purposes only.