I'm Not Crazy -- It's Them
Gail-Tzipporah Saunders

Hell Hath No Fury

Posted Wednesday, October 5, 2011, at 11:38 PM
View 8 comments
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. Please note that those who post comments on this website may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.
  • She didn't "smooch" with her boyfriend, he was trying to comfort her after the brutal murder of her friend. She went and bought underwear (not sex toys) after the murder because here room was sealed off by the police so she didn't have any clothes. She did some gym exercises because talking to the police she said she was a gymnast and they asked her to show them.

    If you had been questioned for 3 days with 3 hours sleep or less each night, then kept up all night and told lies by more than 30 policemen and slapped around a bit, I think you would say anything they wanted you to say.

    Finally, the prosecutor Mignini is not awaiting trial, he has already been sentenced to 16 months and is appealing.

    -- Posted by geebee2 on Thu, Oct 6, 2011, at 4:54 AM
  • How about a little hug for comfort rather than full on mouth to mouth? And why on earth would the police ask to be entertained with gymnastics? Sounds a little out-of-the ordinary to me. She signed a written confession and said she was there, and I believe she was telling the truth for once on that one. Her alibis also didn't hold up. IMHO she is guilty.

    -- Posted by Gail-TzipporahSaunders on Thu, Oct 6, 2011, at 6:58 AM
  • You ask:

    "How about a little hug for comfort rather than full on mouth to mouth?"

    They were young lovers. I guess it was habit.

    "And why on earth would the police ask to be entertained with gymnastics?"

    Either they were bored ( it came up in the conversation ), or maybe they wanted here to do something that could then be used against her.

    The "confession" was obtained illegally. It was illegal on several grounds - a suspect must have a lawyer present when being questioned, she was assaulted and it was not recorded. Confessions obtained by these methods are wholly unreliable.

    It's absolutely clear that the police persuaded persuaded her to confirm their theory. Of course the theory was wrong, Lumumba had a cast iron alibi. The "confession" was nonsense, and indeed the confession indicated clearly that Amanda was very confused by that point, and had been railroaded into accepting the police's incorrect theory.

    "Her alibis also didn't hold up"

    Well her alibi was from Raffaele, who conveniently was enrolled into the hypothetical conspiracy. Incidentally their story was corroborated by computer records, which showed they were at Raffaeles apartment late that night.

    The whole case is unbelievable. It's like the Salem Witch trials. We are asked to believe that the young couple (neither of who had any criminal record or record of violence) left the privacy of Raffaele's apartment late at night, met up with a burglar who they did not know (and who had had his cellphone confiscated by the police, so no means of communication with them) and satanically conspired to murder her good friend Kercher. And they managed this without leaving any forensic evidence in the bedroom where Kercher was murdered . DNA matching Guede's was found both on and inside Kercher's body and on her shirt, bra and handbag. A bloody handprint found on a pillow under Kercher's back was also matched to Guede.

    The simple and obviously correct explanation is that Rude Guede burgled the house, was trapped when Kercher returned, at which point he sexually assaulted and murdered her. Property, including two mobile phones and money was taken. Very sad indeed, but unfortunately an all too typical murder.

    -- Posted by geebee2 on Thu, Oct 6, 2011, at 4:40 PM
  • @geebee2 &

    "...The "confession" was obtained illegally. It was illegal on several grounds - a suspect must have a lawyer present when being questioned..."

    "Miranda" does sound at least vaguely Italian but that finding of illegality was established in the US and different countries (usually) have unique laws and judicial systems. Admittedly I'm not particularly knowledgeable but statements like that need buttressing, a link would be helpful.

    As for having an opinion on this verdict - since I've paid little attention - I have none. My "e-pals" in the UK seem to mostly agree with this post's author - however, while I'll not express outrage (in either direction) it's my understanding the original study of the DNA evidence was deeply flawed.

    I would submit the author should acknowledge there are such things as false confessions, especially when "duress" is present.


    -- Posted by HDucker on Thu, Oct 6, 2011, at 8:07 PM
  • Yes, and I'm sure the lawyer would have told her to deny it. I don't think she seemed under duress until she went to the slammer where she belonged. Funny how that knocked some seriousness into her. She did it and like O.j> before her, she walked.

    -- Posted by Gail-TzipporahSaunders on Thu, Oct 6, 2011, at 10:15 PM
  • "I don't think she seemed under duress until she went to the slammer where she belonged."

    Can you imagine being questioned for 4 days with almost no sleep, and then all night with no food or drink by aggressive teams of policemen? It's not necessarily duress ( although she was slapped twice on the back of the head - Amanda Knox actually piteously justified this action by the police as "helping her to remember" ), it's that after that little sleep and no food you will be completely confused, unable to distinguish suggestion from memory. The "confession" was not her own words, it was written for her in perfect Italian. As soon as she had some food, she clarified that she was unsure about this account, which in fact had been suggested by the police, and was completely wrong, as was determined by the actual evidence in the case.

    Do you think that the women executed in the Witch trials were in fact guilty because they confessed under torture? This trial was very reminiscent of the hysteria of that earlier era.

    [ Note: I will be off-line for a few days ]

    -- Posted by geebee2 on Fri, Oct 7, 2011, at 12:52 AM
  • By the way, I recommend this account of the interrogation by Steve Moore


    who worked for 25 years with the FBI interviewing suspects. Do you still believe the confession in any way indicates Knox's guilt?

    -- Posted by geebee2 on Fri, Oct 7, 2011, at 1:05 AM
  • @ geebee2 &

    Apparently you're more acquainted with the subject than I - I also note you'll be "off-line for a few days." Perhaps in the interim you might study on clarifying this:

    "...Reached by phone Wednesday afternoon, Steve Moore told the West Seattle Herald that, regarding threats from Pepperdine to fire him, "They brought up different reasons at different times." ... There is an author, also named Steve Moore, who writes about the FBI, CIA, and the 9/11 attack. ..."


    As I typed earlier, this isn't something I've followed closely - while capable, I'd prefer to avoid it. The primary reason for me is, while I do 'research stuff' for other people, this one appears to be a "gratis task" and unlike the US stuff you mentioned concerning the "illegality of the confession" - it would appear (again reinforcing my impression that US law - ie, Miranda rights) are not applicable in the Italian system.

    Now Gail-Tzipporah (I'm glad Gomer Pyle's Sargeant didn't have that second to have Gomer roll off when he exclaimed "Well Golly Sargeant Gail-Tzipporah") anyway, Gail-Tzipporah, again as previously typed - I'm unfamiliar with the case so I won't offer an opinion.

    I would note however, this most recent was what we in the US would call an appeal rather than an initial conviction. Whatever 'What's Her Name's' Daddy's lobbying efforts as a US citizen - I kinda/sorta doubt the efficacy in an Italian court.

    I base that "kinda/sorta" feeling on the US' system of 'origin jurisdiction' [where "feelings" might play a part] as opposed to a higher court - usually located some considerable distance from where the alledged offense was committed.

    Of course that basis rests on the US' foundation that presumes innocence and "reasonable doubt" in the absence of irrefuteable evidence. But here it gets mighty doggone tricky - whether you've studied Descartes, Gail-Tzipporah I haven't a clue but I suspect you've some familiarity with Julius Caesar's experience as recorded in (I'm pretty sure) Tacitus' "History of the Gallic Wars." It's generally covered in Western Civ 101.

    The thing to keep in mind is Roman law is a tad bit different from English "Common Law" (and it's in England's Common Law where you'll find the greater degree of similarity with our US' based jurisprudence - read for instance the Magna Carta or some William Pitt - *might do you some good too geebee2)*.

    Now if you ask any of the more "respectable" authorities in Salem Gail-Tzipporah, the general consensus will be, "that commentor on your blog-posts is a lunatic."

    Few will realize "lunatic" combines Roman (Italian) law with England's Common Law.

    If you're still with me (figuratively of course) here's Descartes' "brief" on Reasonable Doubt - mainly Chapter Two:


    -- Posted by HDucker on Fri, Oct 7, 2011, at 8:35 AM
Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires free registration: