Extra! Extra! Read all about it!  Amanda Knox is to tell her story in a book to be published by HarperCollins!

But not everyone is happy.  For instance, Nick Ferrari said on the radio a few days ago that he had not the slightest desire to read it.  Now I am a great fan of “Old Nick” and agree with him on many issues.  But I can’t help thinking that on this occasion he is wrong.  Whilst I am deeply reluctant to put money into Amanda Knox’s pocket, I for one am very anxious to hear her side of the story and discover what she has to say.  And I will be hanging on to her every word.

With the aid of a competent ghostwriter, Miss Knox will finally be able to tell us which of her of her several conflicting versions of events is actually true.  Was it the one where she said that she and her boyfriend, Raffaele Sollecito, happened to be at Sollecito’s flat on the whole night when her “friend” Meredith Kercher was brutally murdered – an event so traumatic that it sent Miss Knox into cartwheels?  Or was it her story that she was at home, but in the kitchen and that she put her hands over her eyes to block out Meredith’s screaming? (Her current story is that it was the former – but will she stick to it for the book?)

She might also tell us why she falsely accused Patrick Lumumba, an innocent man.  Her story so far is that she was forced to do so by the Italian police.  But is that true?  Did the Italian police have any reason for wanting to frame Lumumba? Did they have some grievance against him? Is there any evidence that they harboured any animosity towards him? Was there any history of any conflict between him and the police of such magnitude that they would want to frame him for murder? Or did they simply select him at random and not bother to check if he had an alibi? Indeed did the Italian police really force Amanda Knox to say anything false? Or was this just another lie on the part of Amanda Knox to explain away the fact that she made a false accusation against an innocent man? And if her explanation for why she lied does not stand up to scrutiny, then what was her real reason for lying? Lies are usually self-serving. But how could she benefit from falsely accusing an innocent man?

That is, however, the least of her ghostwriter’s worries. They already have their work cut out. They will probably have to tone down the number of times the words I and me are used. It may be Amanda Knox’s story but the publishers won’t want to over-emphasize her self-obsessed, narcissistic perception of herself as some kind of latterday Joan of Arc.

Meredith Kercher - the innocent victim

Meredith Kercher - the innocent victim

Knox’s boyfriend and fellow acquitted former accused, Raffaele Sollecito, is also apparently writing a book about the case – or having one written with his name attached. But Meredith Kercher herself  is no longer with us.  Her voice has been silenced forever by the scum of the earth – which gives Knox and Sollecito carte blanche to say what they like without fear of contradiction.

And this lies at the heart of the matter, because Meredith Kercher’s story will tragically – and unjustly – never see the light of day.  And hers is the book that all decent people would truly want to read. But that would take a real ghostwriter.


29 Responses to Foxy Knoxy tells the truth at last – Knot

  • guest says:

    How do you fire someone without actually telling the person? He fired her in his head?

    • dkessler says:

      You don’t. You fire them first and then re-hire them. It’s happened to be several times – sometimes in the space of 24 hours!

      In any case, your argument still amounts to saying “believe him when he exculpates Amanda Knox, disbelieve him when he incriminates her.”

  • guest says:

    Not really.

    1) His claim is precisely in line with what the other two arrestees stated about their experiences.

    2) It’s indisputable that the police broke the law by not recording his interviews and not providing him with a lawyer.

    3) He was not charged with defamation for making this serious allegation

    • dkessler says:

      So maybe he was telling the truth straight down the line. Maybe he did fire her but had second thoughts.

  • guest says:

    He has to have been lying when he said he fired Amanda because the facts show that he did not fire her.

    His story about being abused by the police fits in with the stories of the other two people arrested for the murder, so yes I do believe it.

    • dkessler says:

      But if he is not a credible witness, then you cannot RELY on his claim that he was assaulted by the police. It sounds like selective belief to support a pre-existing theory.

  • guest says:

    No, he didn’t fire her. In fact he wanted her to work after the murder as well.

    If she was such a terrible employee, why didnt he just fire her when she was supposedly doing all this flirting and neglecting her duties? Barmaids aren’t exactly hard to come by.

    • dkessler says:

      So let me get this straight: he was telling the truth when he said he was beaten by the police but lying when he said he fired Amanda?

  • RIMJOB says:

    Alright the fact that you just stated that Amanda was doing cartwheels in the waiting room leads me to believe that you are reading information from very bad and inaccurate sources.

    Amanda, for a one week period after the murder was questioned for a total of about 60 hours. There are about 120 hours in a week (Mon-Fri), so you should agree that they were both under lots of mental stress and sleep deprived and her an Raf where called in yet again for more questioning at 10:00pm from Raf’s apartment. Why were they called in so late? Why not do this in the morning? Oh thats right, the Italian police who wiretapped these people who they were just “questioning” over the period of that week and found out that Amanda’s parents would be arriving the next day and once that happens they will not be able to do what ever they want to them, so they needed that confession that night.

    Back to your bad information, while Amanda was in the very small waiting room while Raf was getting interrogated, oh sorry “questioned”, Amanda was doing her homework. She decided to take a break and stretch, so she did a stretching movement done in yoga. The male police guard seeing Amanda stretch commented to her that she was very flexible. Amanda explained to him that she had always been flexible and took gymnastics as a child. The police guard asked if she could do the splits and she said yes I can and showed the officer. This act of doing the splits is what got tangled up in the mass tabloids and came out as Amanda doing cartwheels in the waiting room. If you saw the waiting room you would see that it is quite small and there would be no room to do such a move.

    Listen, I think you are one of those people who are on the fence when it comes to is she guilty or is she innocent. I used to be on the fence as well. Take a look at this: http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474981150524

    And also visit this site: http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/index.html

    There was lots of BS that was released which many people to this day still think are true facts. Many sites as well such as PMF and TJMK which mainly consist of ill informed people who will just blindly ignore evidence or claim that any evidence which proves they are innocent is just a conspiracy. Remember these are the people who still think that Amanda and Raf (who did not know each other very well) met with a man named Rudy (who they never communicated with before in their life) and decided to get together, do drugs, drink, and have a foursome with Amandas roommate which they decided to kill. Oh did I mention that they killed her in a extremely small room which was covered in Rudy’s DNA but not Amanda’s of Raf’s? Oh and lets not forget that Rudy had performed almost identical robberies (yes that is plural). Then Amanda and Raf decided to clean all their DNA from the crime room (but leave all Rudy’s) because they can see DNA with their eyes because its soo big, but fail to see a massive bloody footprint on the bathmat despite the fact that Amanda took a shower in that washroom the day after the murder. Maybe Amanda and Raf where trying to frame Rudy??? Yes, lets leave all evidence that points to Rudy, because Rudy is such a good friend of our (not a single email, text, or phone call ever made to Rudy from Amanda or Raf) that he would just take the full rap for the murder and never implement us in the crime. Here is the best part! They will also stay in the country to help the police find the murderer, even though Amanda could have easily fled to the US or Germany. Just ask a guiltier if they could explain to you how the murder occurred, you will quickly see that not one will give you an answer because they themselves can see how crazy they will sound.

    RIM JOB ( )*( )

    • dkessler says:

      You present a good case. But I’m still wondering if the police had got it into their heads that Lumumba was guilty – or that all three were guilty – and were ready to use coercion to build their case, why did they not use such methods on Lumumba as well?

      • guest says:

        They did, but Lumumba was tougher. He described being beaten in an interview.


        “I was questioned by five men and women, some of whom punched and kicked me,” he claims. “They forced me on my knees against the wall and said I should be in America where I would be given the electric chair for my crime. All they kept saying was, ‘You did it, you did it.’

        They also never actually accused Amanda of murder, just asked her to place herself at the scene. With Lumumba, they had to accuse him directly of murder.

        Lumumba should have been provided with a lawyer and his interrogation should have been recorded in accordance with Italian law. Neither of those things happened.

        • dkessler says:

          Now I’m even more confused. Did he fire her as her claims or merely give her the night off?

          His version offers another reason why she accused him: revenge for the alleged dismissal.

          His story also reinforces my view that Amanda Knox has a narcissistic personality. This doesn’t make her guilty of murder. But it does explain the behavioural attributes that aroused police suspicion.

    • I’m wondering what is the source of RIMJOB’s information?

  • RIMJOB says:

    They did not start off open minded. Why do you think they called them both in for questioning? It wasn’t because they enjoyed their company so much. Why was she not granted access to an attorney? Oh and why this questioning went all the way through the early morning (past 1 a.m.) and ended around 5 a.m. And lets not forget that nothing was recorded or video taped (according to the police) because of “budget cuts”. These suspicious answers from Amanda was telling the investigators that she spent the night at her boyfriends house? The police knew that a black man was the one who was in the murder room that night (they found the hair belonging to a black man in the room) and Meridith worked and knew a black man named Patrick. They saw Amanda said to Patrick the night of the murder that she would “cya later” which according to Italian police that meant that Amanda planned on meeting with Patrick later that night. This lead them to believe that she took part of this murder, even though there was not a shred of Amandas DNA in the murder room. The police did not have a “open mind” going into that interview/interrogation. There mind set was to get a confession no matter what and that is exactly what they did. Even listen to the recordings and watch the video of the interview/interrogation, the police acted perfectly professional and reasonable. Oh wait, there are no recordings or video because of budget cuts. Yes, when the Italian police makes cuts to their budgets they just cut things that are not really important, like recording machines and video cameras for important interrogations, because who needs those things and oh ya the operating cost of a recoding machine are just through the roof. MY IPHONE HAS A VOICE RECORDER FOR HEAVENS SAKE!!!

    • dkessler says:

      Questioning some one who shared lodgings with the victim – lodgings that were also the crime-scene – is hardly unreasonable. And it certainly doesn’t prove a lack of open-mindedness on the part of the police.

      Furthermore, Amanda Knox’s behaviour (turning cartwheels), while not evidence of guilt, was certainly odd enough to draw further scrutiny.

      And they didn’t actually get a confession. They got an accusation. Is there any evidence that they used such methods as you describe against Lumumba himself?

  • Nightowl says:

    Seems the Italian cops saw Amanda as an amalgamation of various Femme Fatals they saw in American movies and believed them accurate depictions of American womanhood. How else do you explain the focusing in on a college girls female roommate as the most likely perp in a rape and murder of a young woman? Would any Midwestern Big Ten Universities police force operate out of such investigation when a coed is found naked and murdered in her room? Or would the idea that a local thug who had recently been committing burglaries and pulled a knife on several people when confronted during the act be considered a more likely scenario? The recent murder in the Western Chicago Suburbs of 14 year old Kelli O’Laughlin when she interrupted a burglary when returning home after school is exactly such a scenario. Fortunately the police were more rational in their investigation and didn’t focus all their energy into interrogating the girls in her high school circle under the premise that a violent, jealous outburst during a sex orgy is the operative theory in this case. Nope, the whole case against Amanda and Rafaelle was ludicrous and they should have been released the moment the forensics came back pointing to Rudy Guede. The continued prosecution of these two is the real story in this affair, as is the bizarre Tabloid defamation campaign against Amanda. The press choosing to go that route when they well could also have chosen to take the side of an innocent young girl getting railroaded abroad.

    • dkessler says:

      It could also be that the Italian police started off open-minded and then became suspicious in response to Amanda Knox’s answers to their questions.

  • RIMJOB says:

    dkessler, this is not the first time this prosecutor tried to force confessions out of people. Look into his past and see for yourself. Since it seems like you do not know all of the details of that confession I will fill you in. It sounds like you think that they brought her in for questioning and she ended up saying it was Patrick. It was the police that brought up Patrick’s name because Amanda worked for his bar and the night of the murder he texted her saying not to come in because the bar was not busy and Amanda text back saying ok and the famous quote “cya later”. It was this that the Italian police misunderstood as Amanda telling Patrick that she will see him later tonight, but in reality she was just saying by. They found the hair of a American American in the crime room and Patrick was black so they thought they found their man and since Amanda had texted him “cya later” the night of the murder they suspected her involvement and pressed her to confess. They kept saying that they knew it was Patrick and for her to confess, because of that text message. After hours of intense interrogation without breaks, food, translator, or washroom she signed the confession. It is also fair to say that at that time she could have thought that Patrick could be the killer. He knew Meridith and asked Amanda questions regarding the murder, so at the time Amanda could have thought that it might have been Patrick, especially since the police were pushing that theory so hard on her. Shortly after the interrogation she went back to her original story.

    Honestly, do you believe that no recording or video was taken during this interrogation considering how big this case was? Come on now thats policing 101, the cops are obviously trying to hide something.

    Have you also taken the time to read the confession? Count how many times she says confused and imagine. It is obvious that she just giving the cops what they want and like I said before there is not way of her knowing that Patrick was innocent, especially since the police have been hammering the theory that it was Patrick. Look up the definition of duress. The word exists for a reason.

    Lastly, it is in the police officers doing the interrogations best interests to get the confession because it would look great on their resume. That is how officers get promoted in the Italian police, the more places there name is on big cases the better it looks for them. This was a huge case so imagine how good it would look being one of the officers that got the confession. This would also explain why they were high-fiveing and hugging each other after getting the confession. How many interrogation videos have you seen that end like a touchdown celebration?

    • @RIMJOB
      It is not only in the Italian police that officers get promoted by cracking high-profile cases. The same is true in the UK, in the USA, in Israel – in almost every police force in the western world.

      @dkessler (and all the other commenters, in fact)
      As a criminal prosecutor, I have frequently noticed how tenuous is the connection between what is published in the mass media and the actual evidence. The mass media have an interest in publishing the most sensational take on any story and even if what they publish is not a complete fabrication, it is rarely the whole truth. In fact, they don’t always publish all the KNOWN facts. I would therefore be very wary of basing any conclusion as to the guilt or innocence of Ms. Knox and her co-defendant on the reports published in the newspapers or other mass media.

  • Gerard O'Driscoll says:

    I have total sympathy with the Kercher family. No one should have to suffer like that. I feel for that poor girl every day. And that’s the point: I read about her every day (I and thousands more follow the case). Meredith Kercher certainly has not been forgotten. She has never been forgotten. Her name is all over the Internet. There are blogs, forums, web sites all dedicated to this case. Her picture is everywhere. Imagine if the actual lone killer (Rudy Guede) had been simply caught and prosecuted and two college kids had not been framed for the murder. Then Meredith Kercher would absolutely have been forgotten. No one reading this would even remember her name. And don’t forget, it’s the police and prosecution who fed the media all the salacious details about this case. They built Knox up as a harlot and a she-devil to compensate for a lack of evidence. So if you want to blame anyone for the media circus, blame the prosecution.

    • dkessler says:

      I agree that the demonization of Amanda Knox was wrong and distracted attention from the real issues. Attempts to portray the healthy and normal libido of a young woman as the sign of a she-devil is symptomatic of the misogyny rampant in patriarchal societies like Italy. That is not however proof that the Italian police tried to frame anyone.

  • Bill W. Williams says:

    The real problem with the premise of this article, is that Meredith Kercher has mever been forgotten – for one thing father John Kercher is also writing a book. I also don’t know of anyone who hasn’t expressed sympathy with the Kerchers, myself included. They’ve been the ones lied to by the prosecution here…. there was no evidence that Knox and Sollecito were involved, unless you call cartwheels hard evidence.

    The real forgotten person here is Rudy Guede…. who got a reduced sentence for playing ball with the prosecution.

    • dkessler says:

      I agree with you about one thing: it is a disgrace that Rudy Guede had his 30 years reduced to 16 as a result of his mealy-mouthed “apology” in which he denied his guilt (despite the scientific evidence) and admitted that he “didn’t do enough” to save her. What a weasel! And what gullible Italian judiciary for accepting it!

      John Kercher may be writing a book – and good that he is. But there was a long period when all the talk in the news was about Amanda Knox (not even Sollecito or Lumumba or Guede). And it is fair to say that in that period, Meredith Kercher WAS forgotten.

  • Countess Castiglione says:

    Thank you for this concise commentary on the the real heart of the matter, “Meredith Kercher’s story will tragically – and unjustly – never see the light of day”.

  • Why, in fact, were Knox and Sollecito acquitted on appeal?

    • dkessler says:

      Long story. Mishandling of DNA played a significant part, but it’s quite a convoluted story. Scour the internet for info. I’m too lazy to write it up.

      • Bill W. Williams says:

        At the end of the day there was no evidence against them. It was a smear compaign to begin with, incl. the suggestion that Knox told multiple conflicting stories. The only two stories she ever told, one was coerced from her at interrogation, an interrogation that was ruled inadmissable at trial by the Italian supreme court.

        After interrogation, Knox returned to what she’d said all along. The myth of multiple stories is maintained by those who read headlines, and not the bodies of newsstories.

        The one thing I’ll give the writer here is this: why would the cops immediately run out and arrest Lumumba solely on the strength of the confused imaginings of someone 4 months past her teemage years? The answer to that is also why it’s interesting that the tapes of Knox’s interrogation mysterious disappeared and that the police fried four computers to do with the crime scene.

        Why WOULD the cops do all that? I actually believe that Knox is not in a position to tell us why.

        • dkessler says:

          Call me a skeptic, but two stories is one too many.

          What is the source of the claim that she was coerced into accusing Lumumba? (Miss Knox herself, I believe.)

          And did they coerece her into accusing Lumumba because they wanted to “get” him or they merely coereced her to the point that she felt the need to make up something and she just happened to accuse Lumumba? This doesn’t really make sense. Even if she was coming under police pressure and felt she had to say something to stop that pressure, why accuse a specific man? Why not say it was a stranger?