Amanda Knox Trial [Archive] - Absolute Write Water Cooler

ad_lucem

06-13-2009, 09:11 PM

This has been big news in the UK, because Meredith Kercher was British. This is a link to the latest BBC article, and archive articles.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8098607.stm

The physical evidence against Amanda Knox is shaky at best. Certain sections of the Italian police are no strangers to corruption, and it's possible that at least some of the physical evidence has been doctored, planted or disappeared. One man has already been convicted of the killing, the question is whether Knox was complicit. Her main problem is that she's changed her story several times, and this is being taken by the prosecution as an indication of her guilt.

It sounds like they got the guy who actually did it, because he initially said he acted alone.

The whole kinky sex thing seems too far fetched (even for a screwy American college girl).

Guilty or not, I'm betting it would be too embarassing to let her off now. I'm guessing she won't be back in the States again until she's an old lady.

Fran

06-13-2009, 11:06 PM

If I had to be at the mercy of any European justice system, Italy's would be very low on my list of preferences.

Maybe she lied to them at first. Maybe she told them the truth at first. Maybe she's just saying what they want to hear. The fact that she changed her statement is enough for them, in my opinion. I agree it would be embarassing if she's found not guilty, but I hope it wouldn't override their sense of justice. As far as I understand from a Private Eye article (unfortunately their website doesn't carry archive articles so I can't link to it) it's only the lead prosecutor who seriously believes the 'sex game gone wrong' theory.

AnneMarble

12-05-2009, 03:05 AM

I just got the news update that Amanda Knox was found guilty. On the one hand, I'm not surprised because I'm sure the jury was influenced by the prosecution, the coverage in their country, etc. On the other hand, WTF?

A few months ago, Nancy Grace had a special episode about this case. Even Nancy Grace was horrified at the (mis)handling of evidence and the shakiness of the case. Now that tells you something. Nancy Grace always supports the prosecution, and yet she was furious about the way this case had been handled.

It will be interesting to see what the true crime bloggers write about this case tonight...

dclary

12-05-2009, 04:05 AM

She looks really cute.

But that said... I know a little something about being railroaded by the authorities in a case like this. There's always the effort to pin a crime on the easiest target, simply because it *is* the easiest target.

In a foreign land, with no true friends, and no good advocates in the trial system? She probably had no chance of winning this case, whether she did it or not.

rugcat

12-05-2009, 04:05 AM

The case might have been weak, but the idea that the prosecution planted evidence and focused on her for political reasons just doesn't hold water to me. It's the same defense OJ used, if you'll remember.

Prosecutors want to convict people they believe are guilty. They don't want to put innocent people behind bars for life, esp a young attractive white woman.

My guess is that other the guy who was convicted of murder laid out exactly what happened to investigators, but refused to testify in court. So they decided to go for a conviction even though the physical evidence was weak, because they were convinced she was guilty.

That said, without having followed the trial or seen the evidence I couldn't say one way or another if it was a fair verdict.

childeroland

12-05-2009, 06:39 AM

Will she be able to appeal?

aruna

12-05-2009, 10:01 AM

Here's a link:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6945547.ece

Whatever she is or isn't, she's certainly a liar, changing her story several times and even accusing someone else of the murder. That doesn't make her guilty, but it makes her sound guilty.
My thoughts of compassion go mostly to the parents who lost a daughter in a horrendous way.

Also, the two faces of Amanda Knox (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article6945607.ece)

julie thorpe

12-05-2009, 08:09 PM

Who said the physical evidence was weak? It was in fact quite damning, even if the Knox family and their hired PR company chose to deny it when they didn't ignore it completely.. In this case there was forensic, eyewitness and circumstantial evidence fully documented and put forth in court. (Scott Peterson comes to mind; I understand he was convicted without anything but circumstantial evidence).

How many of those taking a knee-jerk stance have actually bothered to study the evidence or get clued up on the Italian legal system? Xenophobia, anyone?

Call this a rant if you want to. Yes, I'm angry. I'm angry because Meredith Kercher died a particularly brutal and protracted death, and her memory deserves from us all far more than ill-informed prejudice and grandstanding.

I am neither Italian, American nor British so I have no national axe to grind, and my heart aches for the families of 3 young people facing decades in prison. But it aches even more for the Kercher family, and the dishonoring of Meredith's memory by the disgraceful performance of the media in consistently misreporting the case at the behest of a highly biased PR campaign.

BenPanced

12-05-2009, 08:23 PM

I'd only heard about the case earlier this week when I happened across it on the BBC news site.

backslashbaby

12-05-2009, 09:28 PM

I can't believe how easily our news will gossip about another country's legal system -- 'gossip' because it's clear how little they know about the case, much less legal systems.

The Scott Peterson case in an excellent example. I believe Amanda Knox and Raffaele did this with the man already in jail for the crime. He chose a fast-track way of being tried. Yet our media is saying, "A man has already been found guilty for this crime! What is going on?" Look up Campbell Brown's reporting last night for a lot of this.

What is going on? Just read about the damned thing, both sides. Or read translations of the trial. I am incensed at our media. I can't believe how badly they have reported this whole thing.

"Will the US government get involved now?" Dear Lord, do we look like a bunch of ignorant eejits!

aruna

12-05-2009, 09:36 PM

Don't they get that the US justice system is not applicable in other countries?

backslashbaby

12-05-2009, 09:46 PM

I also keep hearing them (Amanda's supporters) railing about "beyond reasonable doubt". Don't they get that the US justice system is not applicable in other countries?

They really have colored the reporting with things like this. And I get that they are supporters, that they see things a different way. Cool. But our reporters are using their arguments as if they are fact. I can't believe we are condemning an entire country's legal system based on emotional (and inaccurate) rantings of the accused's family.

I think Amamda and Raffaele would have been found guilty here, as a matter of fact. If Scott Peterson got the death penalty, you know?

Fran

12-06-2009, 12:05 AM

"Will the US government get involved now?" Dear Lord, do we look like a bunch of ignorant eejits!

Hello political death if that happened.

The British Embassy always say they'll help any British national accused of a crime abroad, but they cannot and do not interfere in the workings of a foreign legal system, and nor should they in my opinion. I'm sure American embassies have the same policy. They can't 'get people off' or 'get them tried at home', they'll make sure they have a lawyer and their family's informed, but that's it. If you're convicted you've had it. Some foreign countries will deport people to serve their sentences at home, but they're never asked or expected to do so. I'm sure if there was the slightest chance Miss Knox's lawyer had been able to move the trial to America he'd have done his damndest to do so. Miss Knox may be allowed to return to America to serve her sentence, but she'll have to exhaust her appeals first.

History_Chick

12-06-2009, 12:41 AM

This has been big news in the UK, because Meredith Kercher was British. This is a link to the latest BBC article, and archive articles.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8098607.stm

The physical evidence against Amanda Knox is shaky at best. Certain sections of the Italian police are no strangers to corruption, and it's possible that at least some of the physical evidence has been doctored, planted or disappeared. One man has already been convicted of the killing, the question is whether Knox was complicit. Her main problem is that she's changed her story several times, and this is being taken by the prosecution as an indication of her guilt.

Thats what someone on CNN said. The evidence was poor and that the prosecutor in the case was not pleased by Knox's personal life.

I dunno if that is true or not.But it had some people's knickers in a knot on TV last night.

aquacat

12-06-2009, 02:52 AM

I know Amanda Knox - she was my student at UW awhile ago. I've been following the trial a bit, and my thoughts are mixed. On the one hand, the evidence does seem to be mostly circumstantial, and the prosecution was never able to put forth any credible motive (even going so far as to say that "many crimes have no motive," which might be true but doesn't present a compelling argument for this particular case). I also think the case was sensationalized in the Italian media and there was a lot of anti-American sentiment that clustered around Knox, so I'd be willing to believe that the prosecutor pursued her as much because she makes a believable villain as because they were convinced of her guilt (and let's face it, prosecutors in the US do that all the time, so why not in Italy?). And given my experience with her, I just don't buy the story that she was some oversexed she-devil who manipulated everyone around her. Obviously that doesn't mean I don't believe her capable of it - I think all people have a dark side and are capable of violence. But the "she-devil" image just strikes me as absurd and hyperbolic in the extreme.

I also think accusing her of being a liar because she changed her story betrays a lack of experience with the way the police, the law and the human memory operate. In fact it's quite common for people to change their stories because the police will badger you for so long and so painfully that often people will confess just to get a rest. It's also possible for people to be convinced that their memories of a situation are false if enough pressure is put on them and they hear a different version of the story enough times. I don't believe that Amanda lied, at least not deliberately - I think she was a scared and possibly got badgered into saying the wrong things. It happens all the time.

On the other hand, I think it's xenophobic to argue that the trial was somehow more corrupt than it would have been if it happened here, and obviously I (like everyone else uninvolved with the trial) don't know all the details because I wasn't actually there. The whole story is tragic and mysterious, and while I don't necessarily agree with the verdict, I don't know what to make of it.

backslashbaby

12-06-2009, 04:24 AM

That's fascinating that you knew her! I think the she-devil image had to be over the top. Raffaele was the one with the knife fetish. I think she did it in large part to please him, and I don't know that murder was the original intent.

I suppose the she-devil thing was to get Italians over her 'angelic' face. I take it they didn't have as many hurdles getting people to believe her boyfriend was capable of it.

Celia Cyanide

12-06-2009, 05:10 AM

the prosecution was never able to put forth any credible motive (even going so far as to say that "many crimes have no motive," which might be true but doesn't present a compelling argument for this particular case).

But would there have been a motive for anyone? The crime was pretty bizarre, and, it seems, pointless, for anyone to have committed.

aquacat

12-06-2009, 05:34 AM

But would there have been a motive for anyone? The crime was pretty bizarre, and, it seems, pointless, for anyone to have committed.

Knox was convicted of conspiracy to murder - conspiracy implies planning, which likewise implies motive. It would have been different if they were trying her for manslaughter or something, but they weren't - they were implying premeditation, and to me it seems like that would require a legitimate motive. Even something like "blind hatred" could have worked as a potential motive, but from what I've read about the case they weren't actually able to proveeven that. Granted, I don't know the laws of Italy, but just from what I know about the case they were operating on some questionable evidence and some wild theories, and I think the effort to paint her as this heartless devil was a way to overcome the fact that the prosecution's accusations about Knox were unprovable.

And I think it's important to note that the crime scenario worked up by the prosecution was developed by lead prosecutor Giuliano Mignini, who is under investigation for prosecutorial misconduct and abuse of power.

I think this case is proof of how susceptible people are to mistaking the use of tabloid imagery and wild accusations for evidence, personally.

backslashbaby

12-06-2009, 06:56 AM

It is such a bizarre case because it's difficult to picture what must have happened in that room. But I think the evidence is clear that they were all there, and bleeding (not Raffaele, actually, on the bleeding). And Amanda and Raffaele were there again the next morning cleaning up the crime scene and washing Meredith's clothes just before their first lie to police.

Add that to all of the circumstantial evidence, and I'm sold. I don't know what the hell went down or how much planning it took, and it's so bizzarre. But unless they explained it as manslaughter, I'd have to assume what happened was what they wanted. Their words of explanation sank them more than anything, I think.

And the fact that she let a totally innocent dude (her boss) get put up for it with her first testimony. That's hard to get past! I'm so glad he had a great alibi.

julie thorpe

12-06-2009, 07:04 AM

veinglory

12-06-2009, 07:06 AM

Amanda may be kookie, but that doesn't make her a murderer. The whole idea of a Satanic sex game murder is rather ludicrous.

backslashbaby

12-06-2009, 07:11 AM

I agree that the Satanic part, etc is ludicrous.

One of her ex-roomates here in the States will swear in court that she had guys come in in masks to scare her friends one night, though. A pretend robbery for fun. I wonder if that was the original idea with poor Meredith?

In any case, as to motive, I believe that you can't believe a word either of them says. Read their prison diaries and you'll see what I mean.

aquacat

12-06-2009, 07:16 AM

And I think it's important to note that the crime scenario worked up by the prosecution was developed by lead prosecutor Giuliano Mignini, who is under investigation for prosecutorial misconduct and abuse of power.

The Gospel according to Marriot the PR master of spin, Doug Preston, and the Friends of Amanda. In view of which Mignini is suing for defamation.

Sigh.

Look, all I'm saying is that none of us really know what happened, and since we weren't part of the trial we don't have all the details. We have media distortions. From my personal experience, both with Amanda Knox and with the US court system, I think the trial was full of problematic circumstantial evidence and potential wrong-doing in the pursuit of a verdict, which is not the same as justice. What I find pretty appalling is the fact that so many people are so convinced of her "evil" when they, too, have only been looking on from the sidelines. Your information about the charges being nothing but PR is no more substantial or "truthful" than my information to the contrary. Ultimately, the case was bizarre and I, myself, don't feel that justice has been done.

julie thorpe

12-06-2009, 07:24 AM

Aquacat, I am not saying the charges are 'nothing but PR'. Nobody, least of all Mignini. has ever denied there is a pending civil case against him, and the f

julie thorpe

12-06-2009, 08:10 AM

Sorry - I'm technically rather inept and pressed the wrong key, apparently, and though I attempted to edit it to complete my reply, I have managed to lose that too. And it's 5.30 am here and I haven't managed a wink of sleep yet so I think I'll leave off for now. . .

aruna

12-06-2009, 03:07 PM

Look, all I'm saying is that none of us really know what happened, and since we weren't part of the trial we don't have all the details.

I've been reading up on the trial on the True Justice for Meredith Kercher website. It gives a pretty good blow-by-blow account of the trial, presenting evidece the media has chosen to ignore. For instance, the Micheli Report (http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/C343/)

Also, it seems that both Amanda and Raffaele lied not so much out of fear or bullying, but to keep up with the evidence as it became known and contradicted their stories. Here's that page. (http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/C364/)

Many other interesting pages; I haven't read everything.
The Amanda Knox defence website seems to concentrate on what an angel she is, who could never ever do something that horrific.

It seems clear, for one thing, that she was present in the cottage at the time of the murder, cleaned up after it, and tried to make it look as a break-in as well as leaving evidence that pointed to Rudy Guede.

aruna

12-23-2009, 04:01 PM

Rudy Guede's sentence reduced on appeal from 30 to 16 years.
http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php
The 16 years is arrived at because Knox and Sollecito each received 24 years for Meredith’s murder. Sollecito received an extra year, and Knox an extra two years, for the other crimes for which they were found guilty.
Guede automaticaly gets 1/3 less than them because he chose a fast track trial.

backslashbaby

12-23-2009, 04:20 PM

Wow :( I wish there were some way to make him tell what happened if he gets such a light sentence. I think he's quite guilty, too.

I don't know who I think knew about the murder part ahead of time, but he sure didn't call for help or tell the truth after. And it seems pretty clear that he did the main sexual assault. I hate to think of him free in such a short time.

aruna

12-29-2009, 08:21 PM

Wow :( I wish there were some way to make him tell what happened if he gets such a light sentence. I think he's quite guilty, too.

.

I agree that it is a very short sentence for the crime, but it makes sense.
In the appeal he was granted the same mitigating circumstances as the other two, which resulted in him getting the same sentence and thus becoming eligible for a reduction (only possible in sentences under 30 years).

All 3 were convicted in the death of Meredith, and all eventually/equally got the same 24 years:
Raffaelle and Amanda each got one more year for staging the break in
Amanda got another extra year for false accusation of Mr Lumumba
Rudy was granted the 1/3 off his sentence in exchange for submitting to fast track.

Automatic Arithmetic and complete compliance with Italian guidelines:

Raf 24 plus 1 = 25
Amanda 24 plus 2 = 26
Rudy 24 minus 1/3 (8) = 16

Gale Haut

07-31-2011, 10:00 PM

*Bumpity Boop*

New information (http://abcnews.go.com/International/amanda-knox-appeal-hearing-puts-day-closer-freedom/story?id=14151113) on this case. Apparently there was some seriously dirty DNA testing done in the get go. (me=not surprised)

Mellas was delighted with the testimony by independent DNA experts Stefano Conti and Carla Vecchiotti, who were appointed by the court to review DNA evidence from the trial. Their review was very critical of the evidence.

...

Conti and Vecchiotti testified today that they found no DNA or blood on the blade of a knife found in Sollecito's kitchen that prosecutors claimed was the murder weapon. Prosecutors had claimed during the trial that the knife had DNA from both Knox and Kercher on it.

You know, I've felt strongly since the beginning that Knox was innocent, and am very happy to see some possible vindication coming her way. The whole case screamed "cultural miscommunication" to me. I'm really hoping this gets sorted out soon.

Bracken

07-31-2011, 10:21 PM

Of course, there's no telling for sure, but from what I've read, Amanda Knox was railroaded by overzealous investigators and a corrupt court system. It seems to me she's innocent.

clintl

07-31-2011, 10:26 PM

That's what it's looking like to me, too. At the very least, the DNA evidence they presented was completely bogus.

backslashbaby

07-31-2011, 10:53 PM

I think she's guilty as sin, but I agree with throwing out that DNA evidence.

Vince524

07-31-2011, 11:28 PM

I'm reserving judgement on her guilt or innocence until I watch the Lifetime movie about it. If they haven't made one yet, I'm sure they will soon.

raburrell

07-31-2011, 11:50 PM

I think she's guilty as sin, but I agree with throwing out that DNA evidence.

Backslashbaby, would you mind explaining why? (you think she's guilty, that is) I'm not questioning your right to have that opinion, I'm just curious :)

To me, it doesn't make any sense that someone would let a drifter in off the streets, help him murder her friend (for no clear reason that's ever been demonstrated). What was presented in court was that Guede was sexually attacking Kurcher and when they heard it, Knox and her boyfriend ran into the room. Instead of helping a girl they seemed to be friendly with, they decided to join in and kill her. To say the least, that doesn't make sense to me. [source: http://worldblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/07/29/7195714-amanda-knox-victim-of-a-crazy-court-system]
If I found someone attacking a friend of mine, my response wouldn't be 'gee, that looks like fun, let me try'
The changing stories don't look good, I admit, but I've yet to see any piece of evidence that convinces me that adds up to murder. I hope sooner or later, the Italian courts are capable of admitting it.

crunchyblanket

08-01-2011, 02:00 AM

Having read and watched much of this case in Italian papers and on Italian TV, many news sources seemed to take a shine to Knox. They called her 'Angel Face' and praised her for speaking such fluent Italian. So it's not as simple as "the Italian media demonised Knox." Certainly, the Italians I know are pretty much convinced Guede did it (for reasons not much more complex than 'he's black', sadly)

It's worth reading the Micheli report, by the way. Very illuminating.

Knox's behaviour the whole way was bizarre, and defies explanation in a lot of cases. Not least her accusing Patrick Lumumba, who was later proven to have had absolutely nothing to do with it, and wasn't even there (he successfully sued her not long after)

crunchyblanket

08-01-2011, 02:10 AM

That's what it's looking like to me, too. At the very least, the DNA evidence they presented was completely bogus.

Not necessarily: (http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/C343/)

Traces of Meredith’s DNA have been found on a knife compatible with the wounds that caused her death. Amanda Knox ‘s genetic material was identified on the knife handle. DNA belonging to Sollecito has been found on the clasp of the victim’s bra. And more DNA showing Rudy Guede’s genetic profile was found on the victim’s body and elsewhere in the house.

Dr Stefanoni reported that the locus ascribable to Meredith and identified on the knife blade shows readings of 41 and 28 RFU. Conventionally, RFU values lower than 50 can be defined as low. But she maintained that the profile matched Meredith’s by explaining that there is no immediate correlation between the height of the peaks obtained by electropherogram and expressed in RFU, and the reliability of the biological investigation.

In fact “even if statistically - in most cases - the RFU data is directly proportional to the possibility of a certain interpretation of the analysis result, on the other side many cases of high peaks of difficult interpretation exist (because of background noises), as well as low peaks that are objectively unquestionable, hence the need to proceed to the examination of data that is apparently scarce, but that mustn’t be considered unreliable per se.”

*The use of multiplex PCR and fluorescent dye technology in the automated detection and analysis of short tandem repeat loci provides not only qualitative information about the profile - i.e. which alleles are present - but can provide also quantitative information on the relative intensities of the bands, and is therefore a measure of the amount of amplified DNA.”

So if on one side Dr Stefanoni admits that the RFU readings are low, on the other her experience suggests that many cases of unquestionable matches exist showing readings lower than 50 RFU, and this appears to be the case with Meredith’s DNA sample on the knife.

Contamination in the laboratory is categorically excluded by Dr Stefanoni. The samples were processed with maximum care in order to avoid any contamination during lab procedures. Contamination during the collection phase is excluded by Judge Micheli, as the samples were collected by different officers at different times in different places (example Via della Pergola at 9:40am on Nov 6. 2007, and Sollecito’s apartment at 10:00am, on the same day, by a different ILE team).

As for Sollecito’s DNA found on the bra clasp, the match is unquestionable, according to the lab reports. Samples from crime scenes very often contain genetic material from more than one person (e.g. Rudy Guede’s DNA has been identified in a mixture with the victim’s DNA in a few places), and well-known recommendations and protocols exist in order to de-convolute mixed samples into single genetic profiles.
So if the lab reports indicate that unquestionable biological evidence of Sollecito’s DNA was found on the bra clasp, at the present time we have no reason to believe that these recommendations weren’t followed and that therefore the reports are not to be trusted.

As to cells “flying around” depositing themselves – and their DNA content - here and there around the murder scene, there have been some imaginative theories advanced, to say the least.

The reality though is that although epithelial cells do shed, they don’t sprout little wings to flock to one precise spot, nor grow feet to crawl and concentrate on a piece of evidence. There needs to be some kind of pressure on a surface in order to deposit the amount of biological material necessary to yield a reliable PCR analysis result. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polymerase_chain_reaction) A simple brushing will not do.

As a matter of fact, Dr Stefanoni agreed with Guede’s defense that Guede‘s genetic material found on the left sleeve of Meredith’s blouse was minimal; and this was because the DNA found there belonged to the victim and was not a mixture. In the situation where there is a clear disproportion between quantitative data of two DNA’s coexisting in a biological trace, the PCR will amplify the most abundant DNA.

As agreed by Dr. Stefanoni and Guede’s defense, the conclusion here was that on the left sleeve there was plenty of Meredith’s DNA but very little of Guede’s. (This was used by his defense to deny that Guede had exerted violence on Meredith’s wrist).

After listening to the arguments of the prosecution and the defenses, Judge Micheli provided reasons why he rejected the contamination claims and ruled that all the biological traces identified as reflecting Sollecito’s and Knox’s DNA are admissible as evidence. He arrived at the conclusion that the DNA evidence is sound and, considered along with the non-biological proof, he decided there was more than enough evidence to order Knox and Sollecito to stand trial.

Gale Haut

08-01-2011, 02:55 AM

clintl

08-01-2011, 03:01 AM

Not necessarily: (http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/C343/)

And the court-appointed independent investigators for her appeal thoroughly refuted both the findings of the evidence itself and competency of the methods used to collect it. None of that is credible any more. Or, at least, none of it should be.

crunchyblanket

08-01-2011, 03:20 AM

From everything I've seen the Italian media didn't depict her simply as "angel face"; they depicted her as "angel face killer with ice cold eyes." There's a huge difference. I'd like to see a link or source crediting a positive portrayal of her in the Italian media to back that up.

It depends what you were watching. I know Canale 5 were big on the 'ice cold eyes' bit, but it was one commentator (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11823193), not the entire press. Rai coverage was fairly mixed. The Corriere della Sera was, from what I read, pretty balanced (apart from leaking segments from her diary in one edition) and malign what they perceive as a measure of xenophobia in the American perception of Italian coverage:

http://tandfprod.literatumonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01439685.2011.552697

There's a whole text on it here, although you have to pay for it.

It's also worth noting that the Corriere have also, at times, reported evidence to suggest Knox wasn't guilty (http://www.king5.com/news/local/New-testimony-in-Knox-case-86717937.html):

The newspaper Corriere della Sera and other Italian media reported that Alessi had said Guede told him that Knox and Sollecito were not at the crime scene the night of the murder and had nothing to do with it

She was also given gifts by Italian locals (http://www.nowpublic.com/world/amanda-knox-showered-christmas-gifts-italian-locals), which isn't really an act that fits with the perception of blanket negative press.

This is a fairly good assessment that seems to fit well with what I've seen:

While most of the mainstream Italian press seemed to concentrate on directly citing Knox rather than opining or raising additional conjecture, news outlets were also given something else to report – a different report. Not long after Timothy Egan from The New York Times released his only-maybe-quite-barely objective piece in defense of Knox, “An Innocent Abroad (http://egan.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/10/an-innocent-abroad/),” a couple days before she was to testify, the American journalist was himself cross-examined in La Repubblica (http://ricerca.repubblica.it/repubblica/archivio/repubblica/2009/06/12/new-york-times-all-attacco-amanda-vittima.html) and Il Corriere della Sera (http://www.corriere.it/cronache/09_giugno_11/amanda_new_york_times_1f68d100-567a-11de-82c8-00144f02aabc.shtml). Though his piece concentrates on the dubious legitimacy – and it is very deeply dubious – of the investigation and proceedings so far, he passes plenty of unnecessary judgment as well. For him to claim that “In Italy, they see a devil, someone without remorse, inappropriate in her reactions” when gazing upon Ms. Knox is, at best, extraneous. Especially in the specious context in which he drops it.

Incidentally, did you know that she was voted Italian Woman of the Year?

Of course there was plenty of negative press about her too. That can't be denied. Some of it was dodgy to the extreme - no more so than the British press, I might add. But I take exception at the idea that it was ALL negative - that's simply untrue.

Gale Haut

08-01-2011, 04:25 AM

Jean Marie

08-01-2011, 04:33 AM

I'm reserving judgement on her guilt or innocence until I watch the Lifetime movie about it. If they haven't made one yet, I'm sure they will soon.
Angelina Jolie can play Amanda.

And the court-appointed independent investigators for her appeal thoroughly refuted both the findings of the evidence itself and competency of the methods used to collect it. None of that is credible any more. Or, at least, none of it should be.
I've heard the same; that the collection of the evidence was tainted.

I think she knows what happened, but wasn't involved in the actual murder.

Bracken

08-01-2011, 05:24 AM

They depicted her as "angel face killer with ice cold eyes."

Jeesh. Italians are so melodramatic. :tongue

aruna

08-01-2011, 11:00 AM

I think she's guilty as sin, but I agree with throwing out that DNA evidence.

"Guilty" is my opinion as well; for a while I followed the Perugiamurderfile (http://perugiamurderfile.org/)weibsite, which follows the trial, collects and weighs all the evidence, translates documents, gives the timeline etc, and discusses the whole case on their forum (http://perugiamurderfile.org/viewforum.php?f=1), and has done so since the beginning. I think it's the most comprehensive website on the trial. I followed it for a couple months when the case was topical, and I was convinced of her guilt. Of course, it's only my opinion. Only she knows for sure.

crunchyblanket

08-01-2011, 01:00 PM

It also can't be denied that you've failed to source a single example of positive press reported by the Italian media while Knox was actually on trial, i.e. before the initial verdict was passed.

Criticizing perceived xenophobia does nothing if you can't prove that the stigma doesn't actually apply to the situation.

You mean other than this part:

While most of the mainstream Italian press seemed to concentrate on directly citing Knox rather than opining or raising additional conjecture

Perhaps not positive press, but not negative either. Why should there be positive press? Surely neutral fact-reporting is what we're aiming for here?

For what it's worth, I do think the opinion that the Italian media were overwhelmingly against her is one that's been overplayed, and influenced by people wanting to believe that Knox is a poor put-upon innocent. Their reporting of the case was no different to the way the British press reported it - the gossip rags speculating, the actual newspapers reporting, the news channels reacting as per their target audience. It seems silly in the extreme to me to suggest that the gutter press was representative of what everyone in the country thought. That's a little like looking at the British press and concluding that everyone in Britain is a raging Islamophobe who longs for weekly bin collections.

Italian coverage was not uniformly one way or the other. The rags reported on Knox's sex life and her strange behaviour (as The Sun and The Daily Mail would) and the 'proper' newspapers reported primarily what the defendants had actually said, and details of the case as it unfolded (as our broadsheets would) No different to anywhere else.

I ask you again. If the Italian media were so hopelessly biased against Knox, why would La Repubblica and Corriere della Sera bother running the story that Guede told his cellmate that Knox and Sollecito weren't in the house that night?

ETA: I didn't actually know this, but the nickname 'Foxy Knoxy' wasn't invented by the tabloids. (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article5034256.ece)

The nickname “Foxy Knoxy” is not a tabloid invention but was the name she gave herself on her My Space site - supposedly as a reference to her sports skills

The rest of the article is fairly interesting too.

crunchyblanket

08-01-2011, 01:22 PM

Example of balanced reporting from Italian press, from Corriere della Sera. (http://www.corriere.it/cronache/09_dicembre_03/amanda_sollecito_delitto_perugia_88153846-dffb-11de-9712-00144f02aabc.shtml)

They refer to her throughout the article as 'the young American', not as Foxy Knoxy or the Angel Faced Killer or whatnot. They give most of the article to reporting on her actual words, which roughly translates (my Italian is not perfect) as: "How do you remain so calm? But I am not so calm. I have said that I am afraid of losing myself, and being defined as something I am not....others have told me that if they were in my situation, they would have ripped out their hair and pulled their cell to pieces. I will not do that, I will not give up, I'm still breathing and I search for the positive....the decision is done, I feel vulnerable."

She says she's 'afraid to have the mask of a killer forced onto her skin'

As I said, the sensationalised reporting was not universal in the Italian media.

crunchyblanket

08-01-2011, 02:54 PM

And the court-appointed independent investigators for her appeal thoroughly refuted both the findings of the evidence itself and competency of the methods used to collect it. None of that is credible any more. Or, at least, none of it should be.

From the Perugia Murder File website: (http://perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=203)

Dr. Stefanoni's investigation and forensic findings were independently reviewed by Dr. Renato Biondo, the head of the DNA Unit of the scientific police, in 2008. He provided confirmation that all the forensic findings were accurate and reliable and he praised the work of Dr. Stefanoni and her team.

The Kerchers hired their own DNA expert, Professor Francesca Torricelli, who also confirmed that Meredith's DNA was on the blade of the double DNA knife.

Raffaele Sollecito knew that Meredith's DNA was on the blade of the knife, which is why he claimed on two separate occasions that he he had accidentally pricked Meredith's hand whilst cooking.

From the same thread:

It also should be noted that it isn't 'required' that there be a high enough amount for an independent retest in Italian courts, since as standard under Italian law, Amanda and Raffaele's legal teams were invited to be present when the tests were performed so they could observe that they were performed correctly and the results were accurate. They declined the invitation. This is one of the reasons their complaints on the knife DNA were rejected by Judge Massei

ETA: I don't know if Knox is guilty or innocent. I'm in neither camp on this one. Just for reference.

Bracken

08-01-2011, 04:12 PM

Here in the US, it wouldn't even matter whether she were guilty or not.
When the prosecutors have been proven to have presented a bunch of false evidence, the defendant goes free.

aruna

08-01-2011, 04:42 PM

Here in the US, it wouldn't even matter whether she were guilty or not.
When the prosecutors have been proven to have presented a bunch of false evidence, the defendant goes free.

What would happen in America isn't relative to the case and the outcome.

Here is a blog post from the True Justice for Meredith Kercher site, which is linked to the Perugia Murder Files site. It is "a summary of the Massei report, the document that sets forth and explains the Court’s reasons for unanimously convicting Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito for their role in the murder of Meredith Kercher, Knox’s roommate, after a long, thorough and fair trial. The original idea of the volunteers who took part in the project was simply to produce a useful and accurate guide to this case for the average reader. It seems to us that Wikipedia aspires to the same goal but has gone seriously off track in this particular case."

http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/C443/

PS I also do not know if she is guilty or innocent. But there are just too many things that do not add up at all, and make no sense to her story. Rudi Guede was certainly not alone that night. I'm sure that AK was at least in the house at the time of the murder. If she's innocent it's good if she goes free; but she lied so many times on so many things...

crunchyblanket

08-01-2011, 05:22 PM

Here in the US, it wouldn't even matter whether she were guilty or not.
When the prosecutors have been proven to have presented a bunch of false evidence, the defendant goes free.

What false evidence is this? (I'm not being facetious, I'm genuinely interested) The DNA evidence has not been proven false, but cannot be attributed with certainty: (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/06/29/501364/main20075321.shtml)

Regarding the blade, the experts said: "We believe that the technical tests are not reliable."

The experts also said the original testing did not follow any of the recommendations of the international scientific community for dealing with "low-copy number" DNA testing, which requires fewer human cells than traditional genetic testing methods.

They also said that "international procedures for inspection and international protocols for gathering and sampling exhibits have not been followed."

"It cannot be ruled out that the result obtained ... may stem from contamination," according to the 145-page report.

....

However, the review concurred with the original testing in saying that the genetic profile on the knife's black plastic handle could be attributed to Knox. The knife was found at Sollecito's apartment.

All of which means we're still pretty much at square one: nobody really know for certain.

Gale Haut

08-01-2011, 09:00 PM

Example of balanced reporting from Italian press, from Corriere della Sera. (http://www.corriere.it/cronache/09_dicembre_03/amanda_sollecito_delitto_perugia_88153846-dffb-11de-9712-00144f02aabc.shtml)

You mean this article that is dated for the day of her conviction... I'm just going to concede that there was likely some decent reporting done on the case. My gripe isn't with the Italian media, it's with a judicial system that allows itself to be influenced by sensationalized media.

I've seen the same thing happen in the US. I could bring up articles for you if you like. I guess it would only be fair.

I ask you again. If the Italian media were so hopelessly biased against Knox, why would La Repubblica and Corriere della Sera bother running the story that Guede told his cellmate that Knox and Sollecito weren't in the house that night?

I must have missed this question the first time. It's not a biased media that I'm necessarily worried about. The media will sensationalize whatever they can to make money in any country. They do it in the U.K., they do it in the U.S., clearly they do it in Italy. They ran this story because Knox is big news.

I stand by my criticism of a flaw in that judicial system--not so much flawed Italians.

Gale Haut

08-01-2011, 09:10 PM

What false evidence is this? (I'm not being facetious, I'm genuinely interested) The DNA evidence has not been proven false, but cannot be attributed with certainty: (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/06/29/501364/main20075321.shtml)

That article is from a month ago and does not even include the actual report. It's all conjecture. Feels like you're opportunity posting just to make her seem guilty. You'd fit in great with the prosecution.

Did anyone read the part of the ABC report where the court laughs at video of the forensic team collecting evidence on the scene?

A ripple of laughter went through the courtroom at one point as the court was shown video of the detectives collecting DNA evidence, and doing the exact opposite of what the experts had just described was the proper method.

Maybe not proven false, but apparently proven ridiculous.

aruna

08-01-2011, 10:05 PM

The issue of the "ripple of laughter" is discussed on the PMF forum (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14282751): Monday 25th July, 6.44 pm, post by "stilicho" and onwards. Apparently the source is unreliable. Other less biased reports do not speak of laughter and chuckling, for instance the BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14282751).

Devil Ledbetter

08-01-2011, 10:14 PM

Of course, there's no telling for sure, but from what I've read, Amanda Knox was railroaded by overzealous investigators and a corrupt court system. It seems to me she's innocent.

Rolling Stone did an interesting article (http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/the-neverending-nightmare-of-amanda-knox-20110627)on this and it made her seem quite innocent. There were a lot of huge irregularities in the case, not the least of which was a forced confession printed in Italian (which at the time she was not fluent in) and signed by Amanda after hours of grueling interrogation.

That she stayed in Italy while Guede fled the country say a lot, IMO.

aruna

08-01-2011, 10:41 PM

That she stayed in Italy while Guede fled the country say a lot, IMO.

I don't think so. Guede was (practically) homeless; there was nothing at all, normally, to connect him to the murder if he fled. He could easily have hopes of disappearing. Not so Amanda. If she had fled it would have been obvious that she was guilty as she lived in the property; and she would doubtless be found. Where would she flee to, anyway? How could she hope to stay underground and not get caught, alone in Europe? Yes, she has family in Germany but that would be the first place to look for her.

I don't read ANY newspaper reports; they are almost invariably biased, and almost never present all the facts. The Perujia Murder Files and True Justice for Meredith Kercher are the only places where you can get the entire trial and evidence from beginning to end translated into English, and can judge for yourself.

There is a lot more evidence than the knife and the bra strap. For instance:

-- the mixed blood samples of Amanda and Meredith)
-- Sollecito’s bloody footprint on the blue bathmat
-- the Luminol footprints
-- the three traces of Meredith’s blood in Amanda’s room
-- the mobile phone and computer records that provide irrefutable proof that Knox and Sollecito lied
-- Amanda’s telephone calls and conversations with Filomena and the postal police on 2 November 2007
-- Amanda’s false and malicious accusation against Diya Lumumba which she didn’t retract the whole time he was in prison
-- the staged break-in; obviously staged by someone who lived there, and could only have been by her/Sollecito. (Why stage a break-in if you are innocent?)

-- the lack of significant defensive wounds on Meredith, showing that she could not have been killed by one person

backslashbaby

08-01-2011, 11:04 PM

I followed the truejustice site's documentation of the case. There are too many little things to mention, but the main reason I believe she is guilty is her own behavior and lies surrounding the whole thing, the biggest lie being implicating her boss and leaving him in jail so long.

And then there's the cleanup. She and Rafael were caught in the midst of a cleanup that morning, including washing Meredith's clothes. Amanda couldn't have seen Meredith's body from where she was standing, and yet she screamed about seeing a foot.

If it were Guede alone, why was the scene staged, when he certainly didn't stage anything (his evidence was everywhere)? The neighbor heard multiple footsteps running in different directions after the scream that night.

Amanda's blood was mixed with Meredith's in the bathroom in multiple places. Amanda says it's from her pierced ears.

The diaries are a huge part of it, and I admit the cartwheels at the police station do make me suspicious.

I think Amanda was angry at Meredith (over job issues and things Meredith had said about Amanda, probably) and Raffael had a knife obsession. I think they were probably setting Meredith up to be raped or nearly raped originally. I think they were trying to frame Guede and hurt Meredith. They never thought they'd be in trouble for any of it. It must not have gone how they planned, imho.

Devil Ledbetter

08-01-2011, 11:21 PM

I don't read ANY newspaper reports; they are almost invariably biased, and almost never present all the facts. Indeed the Rolling Stone article is biased toward Ms. Knox's innocence. However, they do make a case that much of the "evidence" was not properly collected, the confession was coerced, the suspects were allowed, even encouraged to run roughshod over the crime scene, etc. Which means the list of evidence in the murder file case may or may not be as damning as it appears on the surface.

crunchyblanket

08-01-2011, 11:30 PM

I stand by my criticism of a flaw in that judicial system--not so much flawed Italians.

That's a perfectly reasonable response.

Feels like you're opportunity posting just to make her seem guilty. You'd fit in great with the prosecution.

I have no opinion on whether she's guilty or not. She might be, she might not be. I'm just interested in the case.

aruna

08-02-2011, 11:04 AM

Indeed the Rolling Stone article is biased toward Ms. Knox's innocence. However, they do make a case that much of the "evidence" was not properly collected, the confession was coerced, the suspects were allowed, even encouraged to run roughshod over the crime scene, etc. Which means the list of evidence in the murder file case may or may not be as damning as it appears on the surface.

Yet a lot of the evidence is based soley on their own behaviour and words; and I'm not talking about cartwheels here. For example Amanda herself said that the bathroom was clean the day before the murder; the next day, after the murder, she herself noticed the traces of blood; and it was her blood mixed with Meredith's. The defence has never contested these DNA results; because it is a minefield for them. They just don't want to go there.

Sollecito said that he had pricked Meredith with the knife by mistake, when she had been at his house, and that's how her blood got on it. So he is admitting it's her blood? And yet Amanda says that Meredith never went to RS's house...

To this day RS has never confirmed Amanda's claim that she was with him at his home all night.

Then there is the staged break-in; obviously done in panic, without much consideration. Who could have done this, but Amanda and/or her boyfriend?

Remember that there is a huge PR campaign running for Amanda, and it is that campaign that delivers much of the "information" printed in most of the media. Does Rolling Stone actually have an Italian-speaking journalist sitting in the courtroom? I very much doubt it.

I haven't studied the most recent incidents thoroughly (haven't got the time), but it seems that the Sollecito family paid a jailbird EUR 30000 to give false testimony under oath.

Gale Haut

08-02-2011, 11:17 AM

Does Rolling Stone actually have an Italian-speaking journalist sitting in the courtroom? I very much doubt it.

Quick observation...

I don't know why it should sound ad populum far-fetched for a goliath in the international print/digital media game to have a credible journalist in that courtroom. But continue...

aruna

08-02-2011, 11:53 AM

aruna

08-02-2011, 12:40 PM

Rolling Stone may be a goliath in the US but not elsewhere; so can hardly be called an international goliath. However, your observation is justified and I will find out if RS does have a credible journalist sitting in.

Remember that journalists are people too, and if they want to believe in Amanda's innocence will see everything from that perspective. Even the Inedpendent (A very highly respected UK goliath) has a very biased journalist reporting.

Well, I didn't have to do much searching!

The True Justice website has actually singled out that very RS article in a blog post, calling it a "Deeply Ugly, Inaccurate And Callous Piece Of Junk (http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/a_deeply_ugly_inaccurate_and_callous_piece_of_junk _by_nathaniel_rich_i/)," only repeating the myths propagated by the Knox PR campaign.

Surely, it’s not too much to ask to expect anybody writing an article about the shocking sexual assault, torture and murder of Meredith Kercher for them to have done their due diligence? (http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/C443/) And to made sure that every single claim presented has been verified by the official court documents or independently corroborated by a number of of objective and reliable sources?
And for the San Francisco-based Rolling Stone editors even in their decline (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/anita-thompson/shame-on-rolling-stone-an_b_633216.html) to check out their writers’ submissions?
In this piece, I will analyze some of the numerous wrong claims made by Nathaniel Rich in his article for Rolling Stone The Neverending Nightmare of Amanda Knox (http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/the-neverending-nightmare-of-amanda-knox-20110627) and compare them (as he should have done) to official court documents such as the Micheli report, (http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/C343/) the Massei report, (http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/the_massei_sentencing_report_for_knox_and_sollecit o_part_1_of_a_summar/) Rudy Guede’s final sentencing report (http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/the_new_80000_pound_gorilla_in_the_room_introduced _by_the_italian_supr/) by the Supreme Court, and testimony at both trials.
(ETA: sorry, wrong link posted; now corrected)

crunchyblanket

08-02-2011, 02:17 PM

Well, I didn't have to do much searching!

The True Justice website has actually singled out that very RS article in a blog post, calling it a "Deeply Ugly, Inaccurate And Callous Piece Of Junk (http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/a_deeply_ugly_inaccurate_and_callous_piece_of_junk _by_nathaniel_rich_i/)," only repeating the myths propagated by the Knox PR campaign.

(ETA: sorry, wrong link posted; now corrected)

That's a pretty interesting link. It corrects a lot of things I had thought were true, for example the 'satanic ritual' accusation, and that Knox had refused to leave Italy. I had known about the PR campaign surrounding the trial (a pretty big reason for my initial interest) but it seems to be bigger than I had thought.

Of course, it still doesn't conclusively prove Knox's guilt. Or her innocence, for that matter.

Rain Gnome

08-03-2011, 01:54 AM

That Rolling Stone article is a sad example of journalism. It's just a shill for Amanda Knox million dollar PR campaign. I can understand that her parents want to do everything they can to bring her home, guilty or innocent, but that a national magazine is willing to help a murderer go free is pretty depressing. I mean, guilty or innocent, Rolling Stone should look at the situation objectively and let the reader decide. Instead, they just try and manipulate the facts.

These are just taken from the first page:

The article claims that Amanda Knox was in panic about the locked door (and that they even tried to break it down before anyone else was around), but according to the postal police: "the panic caused by that locked door was not expressed in any way and Amanda did not speak of that locked door in the phone conversation she had with Romanelli [one of the roommates]; it was instead Romanelli who asked Amanda about Meredith." (p. 92)

And according to Marco Zaroli (boyfriend of Romanelli): "'I believe it was one of the officers of the postal police that said there was a locked room and Amanda said however that Meredith was in the habit of locking the bedroom even to go to the shower and this reassured us‛." (p. 93)

Phone records show that when Amanda tried to call Meredith because she was supposedly "in a panic" she called 3 times, lasting 16 seconds, 3 seconds, and 4 seconds. Obviously, in those last two instances, that's not even enough time to the phone ring more than once or twice. (p. 323) Phone records also show that the postal police actually showed up before the calls to the real police were even made. The postal police showed up unexpectedly.

Also, the article ignores the fact that Raffaele had a dedicated cleaning woman for his apartment and "that everything needed to clean up some water was already there," (p. 85). He already had a mop, there was no reason to go and get another.

(Page numbers refer to the Massei Report (http://truejustice.org/ee/documents/perugia/TheMasseiReport.pdf))

backslashbaby

08-03-2011, 10:12 AM

If a rapist-murderer doesn't even bother flushing the toilet (Ruede), what's all this about locked doors, wiped up blood, and moved bodies anyway?

It would be a very sad coincidence if Amanda and Solecito just happened to go to an apartment with a dead body to clean up that morning, simply by chance. But their other statements and behavior paint an even stranger picture than that one big coincidence.

There isn't a great deal of DNA evidence and such, but the circumstantial evidence is damning. They can't even agree on a story for their whereabouts.

aruna

08-03-2011, 10:39 AM

And according to Marco Zaroli (boyfriend of Romanelli): "'I believe it was one of the officers of the postal police that said there was a locked room and Amanda said however that Meredith was in the habit of locking the bedroom even to go to the shower and this reassured us‛." (p. 93)

my bold

And immediately afterwards Romanelli (the Italian roommate) said that Meredith never locked her bedroom door; the only time was when she left to go to England. Who are we to believe?

Amanda and Raffaelle said they had tried to break down the bedroom door, but couldn't; yet just a while later the door was easily broken down. And later on, Amanda told her English friends that Meredith's through had been slashed; yet she had not entered the room and the body had been covered with a duvet. How did she know this?

It's fairly certain they were right there during the murder and know exactly what happened. How much they were involved -- well, that's what we don't know.

The latest entry in True Justice for MK (http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php) is a Powerpoint presentation that goes through all the evidence and all the events one step at a time. Highly recommended for anyone following the case.

crunchyblanket

08-03-2011, 03:35 PM

There isn't a great deal of DNA evidence and such, but the circumstantial evidence is damning. They can't even agree on a story for their whereabouts.

What interests me is that there is more DNA evidence than in the Casey Anthony case, and yet this trial seems to be held to a higher standard than that of Casey Anthony. She is widely considered guilty on the basis of circumstantial evidence, whereas Knox, in some circles at least, is widely considered innocent despite a similar amount of circumstantial evidence plus some DNA evidence.

There's a lot about this case that fascinates from a writer's point of view.

aruna

08-03-2011, 04:20 PM

I think the "attractive innocent abroad" meme spreads easily and is very compelling. In myself, I was aware of it in that story about the honeymoon killing (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-11945015)in South Africa. I couldn't believe, and didn't want to believe, that the husband in question is guilty. In the meantime I just withhold my opinion, and wait and watch. It's just so tragic. It's important, though, to keep the victim in focus rather than the accused.

robeiae

08-03-2011, 06:18 PM

What interests me is that there is more DNA evidence than in the Casey Anthony case, and yet this trial seems to be held to a higher standard than that of Casey Anthony. She is widely considered guilty on the basis of circumstantial evidence, whereas Knox, in some circles at least, is widely considered innocent despite a similar amount of circumstantial evidence plus some DNA evidence.
I'd guess that part of this is motive-related: Casey Anthony had a clear and understandable--if exceedingly distasteful--motive. And her behavior while her daughter was "missing" seemed to confirm that motive.

crunchyblanket

08-03-2011, 06:27 PM

I'd guess that part of this is motive-related: Casey Anthony had a clear and understandable--if exceedingly distasteful--motive. And her behavior while her daughter was "missing" seemed to confirm that motive.

Well, that's certainly true. Is there something in the human psyche that needs there to be a reason before we can readily attribute blame? In the Casey Anthony case, the motive was obvious - an awful motive, but one we can accept because it allows us to attribute blame to that person.

Perks

08-03-2011, 07:32 PM

I'd guess that part of this is motive-related: Casey Anthony had a clear and understandable--if exceedingly distasteful--motive. And her behavior while her daughter was "missing" seemed to confirm that motive.This is the thing that bothers me so much about this Amanda Knox case. The family of the victim is left stranded with only the certainty that something horrible happened to their loved one. The facts don't assemble into anything like a coherent narrative. There have been so many lies tossed up that it threatens the hope of any of it ever making even a little bit of sense.

It's difficult to imagine any innocuous motive for all their lying, but I'm also not comfortable with "well, it couldn't have been anyone else" as the deciding element.

It's a mess, that's for sure.

robeiae

08-03-2011, 07:54 PM

Well, that's certainly true. Is there something in the human psyche that needs there to be a reason before we can readily attribute blame?
Well, I think it's a pretty rational way of thinking, largely unrelated to some sort of psychological need, really. Having a clear and workable reason for one possible chain of events suggests that it is more likely than another chain of events, assuming no other evidence that suggests otherwise.

aruna

08-03-2011, 07:57 PM

Another, probably the main, reason why so many people believe in Amanda's innocence is the huge PR campaign her parents are fighting; going around saying that there is "no evidence" when in fact there is quite a lot of evidence. And when people like Donald Trump jump into the fray giving interviews like this (http://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/Trump-Italy-you-re-still-fired-until-Amanda-s-899792.php), and calls for a boycott of Italy -- well, why would anyone doubt Donald Trump!

crunchyblanket

08-03-2011, 08:06 PM

Well, I think it's a pretty rational way of thinking, largely unrelated to some sort of psychological need, really. Having a clear and workable reason for one possible chain of events suggests that it is more likely than another chain of events, assuming no other evidence that suggests otherwise.

Absolutely, it does suggest it's more likely - but equally, horrible things happen with no coherent reason, and people do awful things with minimal motive, or motives we cannot comprehend.

Rain Gnome

08-04-2011, 12:59 AM

Another, probably the main, reason why so many people believe in Amanda's innocence is the huge PR campaign her parents are fighting

Not only the PR campaign, but the fact that she is a good looking woman. It may be indecorous to say it, but if both women were ugly, not only would most people not care, but those who think Amanda's innocent would instead assume she's guilty.

As for a motive, people who knew her, the roommates, Patrick Lumamba (the bar owner who she worked for) say that Amanda was extremely jealous of Meredith. Why can that not be a convincing argument, considering the countless number of murders committed over jealousy alone?

Not to mention, Amanda had actually been fired from her job (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-496218/I-fired-Foxy-Knoxy-hitting-customers-Patrick-Lumumba-reveals-framed-Merediths-murder.html), while Meredith was hired-on, and that the day after the murder, Amanda was out buying lingere with Raffaele (http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23422745-pictures-of-the-moment-foxy-knoxy-went-shopping-for-sexy-lingerie-the-day-after-merediths-murder.do). It's the same type of behavior Casey Anthony showed, that once the object of jealousy is removed there is just that release of tension and anger and relief.

aruna

08-04-2011, 12:34 PM

There are so many myths and untruths surrounding this case that I truly advise anyone who wants to understand it to read the Massei report (http://truejustice.org/ee/documents/perugia/TheMasseiReport.pdf) or summary; (http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/the_massei_sentencing_report_for_knox_and_sollecit o_part_1_of_a_summar/) or else the Powerpoints #17 (http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php)on the True Justice website; or even just the timeline as outlined on the Perujia Murder File website. For me, a case for guilt is the most straightforward and logical deduction from the basic facts of what went on that night.

The only thing that obfuscates and makes it all fuzzy is if we are to take any of AK's or RS's statements as true, as per their defence.

And for me the most damning of all is her accusation of a perfectly innocent man. This statement was voluntary; the PR propagated myth says she was forced into it.

Here is what the timeline says: (http://perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=2)

Tuesday 6th Nov, 2007

0145 Whilst Raffaele is still being questioned in a room elsewhere, Amanda changes her story and accuses Patrick Lumumba. At this point, all questioning is halted and Amanda is informed of her new status as 'Suspect'. The statements from this session could not be used against Amanda, as she was a 'Witness', but could be used against others. This signed statement is one page long

0330 At Amanda's request, she is heard again (the 'sponateous statement'), this time under the official status of 'Suspect' and in the presence of Prosecutor Mignini who has been called in, as there is no lawyer present for Amanda and only Judges can hear suspects. Here, Amanda repeats her accusation of Patrick Lumumba, but this time with a full story and details. The High Court would later rule that this statement could be used neither against Amanda or others, as she was a 'suspect' and no lawyer was present. This statement is five pages long

0545 Amanda's questioning is halted and her statement signed. She is formaly under arrest at this point. At some point shortly after this time, Amanda is taken for breakfast, after which she is retained in custody, as is Raffaele

Early Morning Patrick Lumumba is arrested and taken into custody as a 'Suspect' on the back of the testimonies provided by Raffaele and Amanda

Daytime Amanda requests a paper and pen, where she writes and signs a two page statement confirming her previous statements, although here she phrases it as a 'vision'. This is handed in to police officers as a "gift". This statement is legally defined as 'Spontaneous' (voluntary), reffered to as the 'Memoir', 'Memorial' or 'Two Page Note' and can be used against both Amanda and others. This document has been ruled admissible in the trial. Amanda and Raffaele are later transfered to Capanne prison to await their hearing to confirm their legal 'Suspect' status My Bold Red

Lumumba spent two weeks in jail as a result of this statement, which she never retracted. He lost his business and his livelihood.

A liar, and a callous liar, is not necessarily a murderer. But the fact that she lied so blatantly about Lulumba and on so many other occasions, all the way through, backwards and forwards... well, sorry. It just makes her incredible. Not one of her stories make any sense.

I think that the insistence on her innocence is far more emotional than rational.

Gale Haut

10-03-2011, 09:26 PM

Final appeal. (http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7383242n)

Fruitbat

10-03-2011, 09:36 PM

Not only the PR campaign, but the fact that she is a good looking woman. ..As for a motive, people who knew her, the roommates, Patrick Lumamba (the bar owner who she worked for) say that Amanda was extremely jealous of Meredith. Why can that not be a convincing argument, considering the countless number of murders committed over jealousy alone?

Not to mention, Amanda had actually been fired from her job (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-496218/I-fired-Foxy-Knoxy-hitting-customers-Patrick-Lumumba-reveals-framed-Merediths-murder.html), while Meredith was hired-on, and that the day after the murder, Amanda was out buying lingere with Raffaele (http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23422745-pictures-of-the-moment-foxy-knoxy-went-shopping-for-sexy-lingerie-the-day-after-merediths-murder.do). It's the same type of behavior Casey Anthony showed, that once the object of jealousy is removed there is just that release of tension and anger and relief.

Casey Anthony was who I was thinking of, too. I think there is a strong bias there where people just don't want to believe that a woman, especially a young, attractive one, is capable of murder for purely selfish reasons.

Jean Marie

10-03-2011, 09:57 PM

Casey Anthony was who I was thinking of, too. I think there is a strong bias there where people just don't want to believe that a woman, especially a young, attractive one, is capable of murder for purely selfish reasons.

Oh but wait, she had her completely rehearsed speech, in Italian, ready for the jury of why she's innocent, which out shone her last one...what, you're not buying it?

;)

Gale Haut

10-03-2011, 09:59 PM

I really only bumped the thread so that people could take note of the final appeal I linked to.

There's no surprise that I still have strong convictions regarding this case for several unemotional reasons.

1. Yes, Knox doesn't fit the M.O. And, no, that is not the only reason I think she's innocent.
2. The forensic evidence has already been thrown out for possible contamination.
3. The Italian media showed unequivocal bias in their tabloid coverage of the case which the jury was privy to during the proceedings.
4. The prosecution proved itself a victim of poor judgement and groupthink, originally coming forward with outlandish accusations of Satanic Ritual Abuse then watering it down into various theories based on sordid sex scandals and drug use.
5. Knox has no convincing motive. Hence the SRA accusations early on and the other outlandish timetables.
6. Guede--young man who had motive, a witness connecting him to the murder weapon, his bloody palm print at the murder scene, and no explicit connection to Knox--seems to be a much more likely suspect.

Those are the major ones, anyway.

Oh but wait, she had her completely rehearsed speech, in Italian, ready for the jury of why she's innocent, which out shone her last one...what, you're not buying it?

;)

Slanted opining in bold. And what does it being in Italian have to do with anything? The trial is being held in Italy. Of course she's going to appeal in Italian.

Jean Marie

10-03-2011, 10:04 PM

I don't think we know the full story even though I agree w/ several of your points: 2,3,4 & 5.

Fruitbat

10-03-2011, 10:06 PM

I'll bow out now because admittedly, I haven't followed it in all that much detail. :)

Gale Haut

10-03-2011, 10:10 PM

I don't think we know the full story even though I agree w/ several of your points: 2,3,4 & 5.

I'm on board with that. There's definitely something fishy about Knox's and Sollecito's alibi. But it could very well be totally unrelated to the case. Besides the prosecution has failed to even disprove the alibi aside from the computer thing.

And I'm still stunned at how it's not P.C. to mention the MO being off. It's not that a white girl is incapable of murdering another white girl. It's just extremely unlikely that she would commit a sex based crime, which makes the prosecution just that much more unlikely.

It's sort of like pointing out a female suicide is suspicious if she has shot herself in the head, because statistically women who shoot themselves tend to choose the chest rather than the head. This would point an investigation to possible foul play. It's not unusual to use statistics in this way.

CACTUSWENDY

10-03-2011, 10:10 PM

Gale Haut

10-03-2011, 10:17 PM

I think the forensic team has already been made a fool of. And thank God it will be a jury voting on the appeal and not a court that's trying to save face rather than seek justice.

crunchyblanket

10-03-2011, 10:27 PM

Casey Anthony was who I was thinking of, too. I think there is a strong bias there where people just don't want to believe that a woman, especially a young, attractive one, is capable of murder for purely selfish reasons.

It's interesting, because there is more evidence to suggest Knox and Sollecito are guilty than there was in the Anthony case, and yet people are convinced of Anthony's guilt but not so much Knox. Interesting.

The Italian media showed unequivocal bias in their tabloid coverage of the case which the jury was privy to during the proceedings.

I've addressed this previously in the thread, and I still don't feel it's a fair point. SOME Italian media outlets did. Not all.

And it's no more a bias than some of the American media outlets I've seen, claiming Knox could not possibly be guilty.

It's a conundrum, for sure. I still don't know if she's definitely guilty, but the more I read, the more I lean towards that.

Don

10-03-2011, 10:29 PM

I don't know if she did it or not. My question is this....

If they let her go won't that make the court look like a fool? How are they going to save face on this? When I watched this yesterday on TV that thought kept running though my thinking. :poke:
Yeah, and we know that in at least one US state, TPTB were perfectly willing to put someone to death to save face. Recently.

My guess is that Amanda Knox was convicted for being different, more than any thing else.

Gale Haut

10-03-2011, 10:32 PM

I've addressed this previously in the thread, and I still don't feel it's a fair point. SOME Italian media outlets did. Not all.

And I also addressed it. Refuted that you ever showed any evidence of positive coverage during the trial. And we still disagree. :Shrug:

My guess is that Amanda Knox was convicted for being different, more than any thing else.
:welcome:

backslashbaby

10-03-2011, 10:36 PM

Amanda's question of guilt isn't really a choice between her and Guede. People who believe she is guilty believe they both took part in the crime.

For the sex-based crime part, there are many women who have been convicted of participating in sex-based crimes with their sexual partner. Imho, she was probably very influenced by Raffaele, similar to so many other women who probably never would have committed those types of crimes alone.

Gale Haut

10-03-2011, 10:46 PM

Amanda's question of guilt isn't really a choice between her and Guede. People who believe she is guilty believe they both took part in the crime.

A major part of the defense is the plausibility of Guede acting alone. It doesn't have to be a choice between them. But Guede seems to be definitively connected to the murder whereas Knox is not.

Doesn't it seem odd then, that Guede got 16 years and Knox got 26?

And as for the sex based thing, it's a very weak argument even presented in that way.

raburrell

10-03-2011, 10:50 PM

? (on Sollecito). He claimed to be a virgin before meeting Knox - I'm sure it isn't unheard of for a guy who's that inexperienced to lead a kinky sex game involving murder, but I still don't consider it a likely scenario.

Gale Haut

10-03-2011, 10:57 PM

Loss of virginity tends to be a gateway to the Satanic Ritual orgies. Totally normal.

:sarcasm

crunchyblanket

10-03-2011, 11:05 PM

And I also addressed it. Refuted that you ever showed any evidence of positive coverage during the trial. And we still disagree. :Shrug:

I showed evidence of impartial news coverage, which I think is the standard we should be searching for here. 'Positive' is as bad as 'negative'. The respectable news outlets reported the facts, as I showed. The tabloids sensationalise. It's not an Italian phenomenon, it's the same the world over.

Let's be clear about this. There is no definitive answer. There is a lot that doesn't add up. To give examples from earlier in the thread:

There is a lot more evidence than the knife and the bra strap. For instance:

-- the mixed blood samples of Amanda and Meredith)
-- Sollecito’s bloody footprint on the blue bathmat
-- the Luminol footprints
-- the three traces of Meredith’s blood in Amanda’s room
-- the mobile phone and computer records that provide irrefutable proof that Knox and Sollecito lied
-- Amanda’s telephone calls and conversations with Filomena and the postal police on 2 November 2007
-- Amanda’s false and malicious accusation against Diya Lumumba which she didn’t retract the whole time he was in prison
-- the staged break-in; obviously staged by someone who lived there, and could only have been by her/Sollecito. (Why stage a break-in if you are innocent?)

-- the lack of significant defensive wounds on Meredith, showing that she could not have been killed by one person

There are too many little things to mention, but the main reason I believe she is guilty is her own behavior and lies surrounding the whole thing, the biggest lie being implicating her boss and leaving him in jail so long.

And then there's the cleanup. She and Rafael were caught in the midst of a cleanup that morning, including washing Meredith's clothes. Amanda couldn't have seen Meredith's body from where she was standing, and yet she screamed about seeing a foot.

If it were Guede alone, why was the scene staged, when he certainly didn't stage anything (his evidence was everywhere)? The neighbor heard multiple footsteps running in different directions after the scream that night.

Amanda's blood was mixed with Meredith's in the bathroom in multiple places. Amanda says it's from her pierced ears.

The diaries are a huge part of it, and I admit the cartwheels at the police station do make me suspicious.

Phone records show that when Amanda tried to call Meredith because she was supposedly "in a panic" she called 3 times, lasting 16 seconds, 3 seconds, and 4 seconds. Obviously, in those last two instances, that's not even enough time to the phone ring more than once or twice. (p. 323) Phone records also show that the postal police actually showed up before the calls to the real police were even made. The postal police showed up unexpectedly.

Also, the article ignores the fact that Raffaele had a dedicated cleaning woman for his apartment and "that everything needed to clean up some water was already there," (p. 85). He already had a mop, there was no reason to go and get another.

And immediately afterwards Romanelli (the Italian roommate) said that Meredith never locked her bedroom door; the only time was when she left to go to England. Who are we to believe?

Amanda and Raffaelle said they had tried to break down the bedroom door, but couldn't; yet just a while later the door was easily broken down. And later on, Amanda told her English friends that Meredith's through had been slashed; yet she had not entered the room and the body had been covered with a duvet. How did she know this?

Again, I want to stress that none of this conclusively proves guilt. But we're not conclusively dealing with an innocent either.

Also, I think Aruna posted a link earlier in the thread that shows the 'satanic ritual' accusation was a misrepresentation made in the US press: http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/a_deeply_ugly_inaccurate_and_callous_piece_of_junk _by_nathaniel_rich_i/

1’03” CNN: You’ve never said that Meredith’s death was a satanic rite?
1’08” Mignini: I have never said that. I have never understood who has and continues to say that. I read, there was a reporter – I don’t know his name, I mention it because I noticed it – who continues to repeat this claim that, perhaps, knowing full well that it’s not like that.
I have never said that there might have been a satanic rite. I’ve never said it, so I would like to know who made it up.

Gale Haut

10-03-2011, 11:07 PM

I showed evidence of impartial news coverage, which I think is the standard we should be searching for here. 'Positive' is as bad as 'negative'. The respectable news outlets reported the facts, as I showed. The tabloids sensationalise. It's not an Italian phenomenon, it's the same the world over.

It was dated post trial.

And it is specific to the Italian system that the jury has access to that coverage, sensationalized or not.

Jean Marie

10-03-2011, 11:10 PM

Loss of virginity tends to be a gateway to the Satanic Ritual orgies. Totally normal.

:sarcasm
Everyone knows that. Along w/ mj being the gateway drug.

Double the sign thingie, will ya please.

I have to go and unfortunately won't be here when the verdict is announced :( it's going to be at 3:30 EST, so, watch the clock! Didn't take long to arrive at a decision, which is a good thing.

I've no idea what the decision will be, but the court needs to save fave, as you aptly pointed out. Will the jury allow for that? Who knows. I believe she had a hand in this, somehow, indirectly or otherwise. Did she actually do the stabbing? Maybe not, but she was there, imo and that right there is cause for guilt and imprisonment. Did she take part in the rape? Don't know that either. Did she watch while the other 2 did? Maybe. Could have been in the other room, could have gone for coffee.

Long and short of it is, she knows way more than she's said thus far which, again imo makes her culpable. How lengthy a sentence does that get her? Time served or more. Interesting to see how it plays out.

See ya later.

raburrell

10-03-2011, 11:15 PM

Maybe not, but she was there, imo and that right there is cause for guilt and imprisonment. Did she take part in the rape? Don't know that either. Did she watch while the other 2 did? Maybe. Could have been in the other room, could have gone for coffee.

Long and short of it is, she knows way more than she's said thus far which, again imo makes her culpable. How lengthy a sentence does that get her? Time served or more. Interesting to see how it plays out.

See ya later.

:Wha: I... I'm not even sure what to say to that. Except that I'm really glad the justice system in this country doesn't work the way you seem to think it should. Flawed or not, convictions should be based on charges that can be proven.

crunchyblanket

10-03-2011, 11:16 PM

Long and short of it is, she knows way more than she's said thus far which, again imo makes her culpable.

That's pretty much where I am on the matter. How much she was responsible for, I don't know, but I think she was there. There's just too much that doesn't add up for it to realistically be any other way.

rugcat

10-03-2011, 11:30 PM

Let's be clear about this. There is no definitive answer. There is a lot that doesn't add up. . .

. . .Again, I want to stress that none of this conclusively proves guilt. But we're not conclusively dealing with an innocent either.This sums it up for me.

I'm not at all sure she's innocent, but I think there's more than reasonable doubt about her guilt.

Fruitbat

10-03-2011, 11:34 PM

Will someone post the verdict, if you don't mind?

crunchyblanket

10-03-2011, 11:35 PM

Watching Italian TV right now, I'll post as soon as I hear it.

Gale Haut

10-03-2011, 11:40 PM

crunchyblanket

10-04-2011, 12:18 AM

I think what bothers me most about that article is the unwritten suggestion that the Italian and UK media operate under bias, but the US media was somehow perfectly balanced. All three countries have had news outlets guilty of sensationalisation. Neither does it explain why the blood in the sink was (supposedly) a fallacious argument - it just asks us to accept that it was.

It also repeats the myth that the prosecution called her a 'she-devil' - that was, in fact, Patrick Lumumba's lawyer, in response to Knox's false accusation:

Another laughable wrong fact. It wasn’t Mignini who called Amanda Knox a “she-devil”, it was Carlo Pacelli, the lawyer who represents Diya Lumumba, at the trial in 2009.

Carlo Pacelli’s comments were widely reported by numerous journalists who were present in the courtroom. Barbie Nadeau describes the moment he referred to Knox as a she-devil in some detail in Angel Face:

“Who is the real Amanda Knox?” he asks, pounding his fist in the table. “Is she the one we see before us here, all angelic? Or is really a she-devil focused on sex, drugs, and alcohol, living life on the edge?”

“She is the luciferina-she devil.”

(From Aruna's link)

Whatever happens tonight, whether you think Knox is guilty, innocent, or somewhere in between, remember poor Meredith Kercher, whose tragic death seems to have been forgotten in the furore.

firedrake

10-04-2011, 12:19 AM

Whatever happens tonight, whether you think Knox is guilty, innocent, or somewhere in between, remember poor Meredith Kercher, whose tragic death seems to have been forgotten in the furore.

This.

Edited to add: Acquitted.
Great, now she can be flown home in that private jet that's apparently waiting for her and make a small fortune from exclusive interviews, ghost-written books and made-for-television movies.

:sarcasm

crunchyblanket

10-04-2011, 12:22 AM

According to Rai news, both Knox and Sollecito have been cleared and released. However, Knox has been ordered to pay the fees of the defence and has been found guilty of slander against Italian police.

ETA: It's been confirmed, they have been cleared.

ETA further: the charge of slander/perjury re: Patrick Lumumba stands, however the Italian court have ruled that the three years she has served is sufficient time.

Sheryl Nantus

10-04-2011, 12:24 AM

I think the entire case is an EXCELLENT example of why parents shouldn't send their kids overseas without proper guidance.

She was sent to Italy to "learn Italian" at a young age without any family around. Whether she is guilty or innocent of what degree of involvement with this murder, her parents were idiots for sending her off to a foreign country with best wishes and a credit card. Children need guidance and I think that if she had a family member around to help out from the start we might have averted this entire crisis, or at least gotten to this result sooner.

raburrell

10-04-2011, 12:27 AM

This.

Agreed, Sue, although honestly I'd put that one on the media and police.

IMO, this was the correct outcome here.

eta: Sheryl, I've spent time both as an exchange student (at that age) and a supervisor (of people that age) in that region of Italy. Beyond a couple of kids who took a dive in the Grand Canal, had no problems. It depends on the kid.

crunchyblanket

10-04-2011, 12:31 AM

This.

Edited to add: Acquitted.
Great, now she can be flown home in that private jet that's apparently waiting for her and make a small fortune from exclusive interviews, ghost-written books and made-for-television movies.

:sarcasm

Pretty much, yeah.

Gale Haut

10-04-2011, 12:36 AM

I think what bothers me most about that article is the unwritten suggestion that the Italian and UK media operate under bias, but the US media was somehow perfectly balanced.

You mean the one that you've read into it? Albeit, it might be legitimate to say, but who cares... The article mentions how the Knox family focused their full efforts on US media, which was a tactical mistake early in the process. That's pretty much the only thing they say about it.

I'm no defender of US media, and am not about to defend either of our media sources or argue about the lesser of two evils. I think they are both shit. They just have different motives and ends. Sometimes they're cultural. Sometimes they're political. Most of the time they're economic.

I'm happy with the verdict. I don't really care about the defamation charge and know nothing about the legalities in Italy regarding that sort of thing. It sounds silly, but whatever.

Hopefully they can focus more on finding real justice for poor Meredith Kercher now and shift the focus from defending the honor of the Italian justice system.

crunchyblanket

10-04-2011, 12:37 AM

I'm happy with the verdict. I don't really care about the defamation charge and know nothing about the legalities in Italy regarding that sort of thing. It sounds silly, but whatever.

I don't think there's anything silly about falsely accusing a man of murder, personally...

Gale Haut

10-04-2011, 12:38 AM

Gale Haut

10-04-2011, 12:39 AM

I don't think there's anything silly about falsely accusing a man of murder, personally...

Oh. I misinterpreted what was meant by defamation. I actually agree with you for once.

crunchyblanket

10-04-2011, 12:44 AM

Oh. I misinterpreted what was meant by defamation. I actually agree with you for once.

Oh come now, don't make out like we disagree habitually. It's just this one issue we're on opposite ends of, and christ knows we're not the only people divided by it :)

Gale Haut

10-04-2011, 12:46 AM

It's true. I don't know about you but I do have a mad crush on Gillian Anderson...

;)

rugcat

10-04-2011, 12:50 AM

I think the entire case is an EXCELLENT example of why parents shouldn't send their kids overseas without proper guidance.When I was 21 I traveled through Europe on a motorcycle. I was planning to head through Afghanistan, over the Vale of Kashmir, and into India.

I got sidetracked and never made it, which I regret to this day since such things are no longer possible.

I never got into any trouble (Except for a few hours in a Greek jail)

Either Amanda Knox was the victim of circumstance, or she was involved in a murder, which hardly comes under the heading of a "bad decision."

Kids today.

crunchyblanket

10-04-2011, 12:50 AM

Knox's family statement makes no mention of Kercher whatsoever.

In the meantime, the reprehensible Daily Mail makes a big boo-boo by publishing a 'guilty' verdict before the verdict was even announced: http://twitpic.com/6upmbq

I'd expect nothing less from them.

crunchyblanket

10-04-2011, 12:52 AM

It's true. I don't know about you but I do have a mad crush on Gillian Anderson...

;)

Now there's something we can definitely agree on.

Rain Gnome

10-04-2011, 01:07 AM

So ironic that this happens on the anniversay of OJ's verdict.
Obvious lesson is obvious: the money will set you free.

shawkins

10-04-2011, 02:32 AM

Erm...OJ is in prison at the moment. And Casey Anthony was flat broke.

willietheshakes

10-04-2011, 02:35 AM

Erm...OJ is in prison at the moment. And Casey Anthony was flat broke.

"Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?"
"Germans?"
"Nevermind, he's rolling."

backslashbaby

10-04-2011, 06:49 AM

Crossing my fingers.

In the meantime, here's an interesting article (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2095586,00.html?iid=tsmodule) examining how our differing geographies have majorly influenced our opinions based on media coverage.

The article also addresses how many people still believe misinformation that was never put straight, e.g. the fallacious argument about the Knox and Kercher blood being mixed in the bathroom.

ETA: The satanic ritual thing has been reported by various media groups, and there's really no way for us to know if it's true. Do you believe the media or do you believe Mignini? I don't trust either, to be fair.

Yeah, crunchyblanket covered my reaction to that article, too. One thing this case always needs is a lot of specific detail. I was referring to the mixed blood on the sink and the box (of Q-tips, I believe) that Amanda herself said were not there the day before the murder.

That was also not a DNA result that was under scientific debate, like the bra clasp or the knife's DNA. The article mentions that it was, but the author would have to explain what he meant by that :)

One note to kids in foreign lands: if questioned by the police, don't tell a story that puts a provably innocent man in jail and let him rot while you tell those close to you that you were mistaken. Folks don't take kindly to that sort of thing!

It wasn't 'Foxy Knoxy' that ruined Amanda's credibility, to me. Who lets an innocent man lose his business and be jailed for murder and doesn't speak up about their 'mistake'? That happened early on, remember.

Jean Marie

10-04-2011, 08:12 AM

Erm...OJ is in prison at the moment. And Casey Anthony was flat broke.
OJ's 1st verdict when he got off scot free, remember. the only reason he's in prison, now is b/c of trying to steal back his own things at gun point. never said he was the smartest guy in the room, or on the golf course.

granted, he was found guilty in a civil court, but never paid a nickel, 'cause he was broke. supposedly.

casey anthony's only broke until the movie comes out. or, book deal.

forgot, amanda definitely knew something about the murder of her roommate. we'll just never know the truth, unless she writes the truth in her book.

Gale Haut

10-04-2011, 08:32 AM

Rain Gnome

10-04-2011, 09:21 AM

backslashbaby

10-04-2011, 10:04 AM

They did not find mixed blood. They found blood samples with DNA from both Kercher and Knox. The forensic evidence reported doesn't conclusively state who's blood it is... maybe because they weren't able to determine it.

It's forensically probable that Knox's DNA would get into Kercher's blood if the victim bled in their shared bathroom. Especially since Knox did not discover her roommate's dead body until after using the restroom when she got home. It's really not that unlikely.

But there is no evidence saying that it was Knox's blood.

Well, it depends on which samples you are talking about. They absolutely determined that the majority of the samples were blood and were Meredith's blood. It was visible to the eye as well (the evidence that used Luminal does have some problems, imho). Nobody is trying to say that those spots were there the day before. Amanda was questioned on the issue and she admits that there was no visible blood before the murder.

One spot was definitely Amanda's blood. Visible blood, on the faucet. The defense mentioned her period and pierced ears. Amanda bled on the faucet after/around the murder. (eta: keep in mind that when she showered that morning, there were visible blood spots in many places around the bathroom.)

Then, from the spots that were Meredith's, Amanda's DNA was found mixed in 3 of them. I'm not sure how they defined whether it was a blood-only mixture or a DNA mixture. I can't find that part of the court transcript translated into English.

Most of the translations focus on casting doubt on the knife and bra clasp (as I think they should).

But it's not as simple as having minute traces of DNA from two roommates on a sink. People have been convicted in the US using similar evidence as the bathroom evidence seen in this case.

Gale Haut

10-04-2011, 10:26 AM

But it's not as simple as having minute traces of DNA from two roommates on a sink.

Considering how poorly the forensic team conducted the investigation it could very well be exactly that.

Anyway, there are mRNA markers that set apart menstrual blood. So if the forensics team knew what they were doing they should have tested for it.

People have been convicted in the US using similar evidence as the bathroom evidence seen in this case.

Without motive? I suspect they have been, but I would be just as suspicious and don't appreciate the insinuation that my conviction is based on her nationality.

backslashbaby

10-04-2011, 03:03 PM

Considering how poorly the forensic team conducted the investigation it could very well be exactly that.

Anyway, there are mRNA markers that set apart menstrual blood. So if the forensics team knew what they were doing they should have tested for it.

Without motive? I suspect they have been, but I would be just as suspicious and don't appreciate the insinuation that my conviction is based on her nationality.

I wasn't talking about your motivations. I'm talking about the case overall :) In the media, etc, lots of folks are acting as if there were a very unusually low amount of evidence. I'm just saying that we do see this kind of evidence here and juries convict on it, so we should be familiar with that aspect of the case.

Motive is strange, and the prosecution doesn't have to prove it here because of that. What was Karla Humulka's (sp?) motive? It's certainly not one that 'fits' with her background or one we can relate to in any way.

I'll have to look up the names of the thrill-killing couple from Maryland that this case makes me think of. Everyone who knew the girl was shocked beyond belief. It made zero sense with her background and lack of motive, so to speak. It turns out the couple just wanted to do it. It's unusual, but it happens too often to ignore.

crunchyblanket

10-04-2011, 03:10 PM

I saw a press conference with the Kerchers earlier today. Very dignified family, even in the face of their tragedy. As reported by the BBC:

Speaking to reporters in Perugia, where his sister was studying at the time of her death, Mr Kercher said: "We accept the decision and respect the court and the Italian justice system.

"We do find we are now left looking at this again and thinking how a decision that was so certain two years ago has been so emphatically overturned, which raises other questions.

"It feels very much like back to square one. The search goes on to find out what really happened."

Meredith's sister, Stephanie, said the "biggest disappointment" was still not knowing what happened and knowing "someone or people out there" were responsible.

"It's still very difficult to speak in terms of forgiveness," she added.
"Until the truth comes out, we can't forgive anyone because no-one's even admitted to it knowing there was someone out there who was responsible."

crunchyblanket

10-04-2011, 03:27 PM

A pragmatic response from La Stampa (http://www.lastampa.it/_web/cmstp/tmplRubriche/editoriali/gEditoriali.asp?ID_blog=25&ID_articolo=9280):

Even though the rules were respected, and the sentence is probably irrefutable, this is not a victory for the Italian system of justice. The confirmation of the evidence was missing; faced with this doubt the judges relentlessly, but also fairly, reached their conclusions. Yet this acquittal leaves a bitter taste in the mouth.

And so, almost by necessity, the debate shifts to the efficiency of our system of justice, and the capacity of our judges, because now there are too many murder cases in which they have failed to give responses that do not convince completely, or fail to convince at all.

(Translation is not perfect, apologies)

seun

10-04-2011, 06:07 PM

the reprehensible Daily Mail makes a big boo-boo by publishing a 'guilty' verdict before the verdict was even announced: http://twitpic.com/6upmbq

I'd expect nothing less from them.

I just came along to mention the same thing.

http://www.mailwatch.co.uk/2011/10/03/invented-eyewitness-accounts/

And will they get into the shit for this?

Will they bollocks.

crunchyblanket

10-04-2011, 06:14 PM

I just came along to mention the same thing.

http://www.mailwatch.co.uk/2011/10/03/invented-eyewitness-accounts/

And will they get into the shit for this?

Will they bollocks.

My favourite bits were the 'quotes', and the descriptions of Knox and Sollecito being lead away. Astonishing.

seun

10-04-2011, 06:16 PM

The Mail 'story' has pissed me off enough for me to make a complaint to the PCC.

I still don't think they'll get in the shit for it, though.

scarletpeaches

10-04-2011, 06:18 PM

They would have had two stories prepared, one for each possible verdict. Someone just pressed the wrong button and published the incorrect story.

ETA: Actually, no, having read the detail in the story. Scratch everything I just said.

robeiae

10-04-2011, 06:18 PM

The most distressing thing with these high-profile cases is that the original victim is just thrown aside like absolutely nothing, while the media does everything it can to turn the accused into the 'real' victim.

And we eat it up. Good game media. :o

Oh, I don't know. The murder occurred in 2007. There was plenty of concern, sympathy, and outrage for the murder, from what I remember. It's four years later. If there has been a miscarriage of Justice--not saying there has--then Knox and Sollecito would be the victims of it, no?

raburrell

10-04-2011, 06:33 PM

"It feels very much like back to square one. The search goes on to find out what really happened."

Meredith's sister, Stephanie, said the "biggest disappointment" was still not knowing what happened and knowing "someone or people out there" were responsible.

"It's still very difficult to speak in terms of forgiveness," she added.
"Until the truth comes out, we can't forgive anyone because no-one's even admitted to it knowing there was someone out there who was responsible."

From the standpoint of a grieving family, I understand this, but the fact is that there is still someone in jail for the murders, who's been convicted with a fair amount of evidence behind him. If yesterday's verdict was the correct one, he's the only one who can really reveal what happened that night, thought there may well be information Knox and Sollecito haven't shared. If the verdict was incorrect, that's another story.

I guess I just find it far easier to believe, from an Occam's razor standpoint, that a guy they let in off the street committed a horrible act than the whole bizarre sex-and-murder game thing.

crunchyblanket

10-04-2011, 06:41 PM

If yesterday's verdict was the correct one, he's the only one who can really reveal what happened that night, thought there may well be information Knox and Sollecito haven't shared. If the verdict was incorrect, that's another story.

I think that's the crux of the matter, and I also think we'll never know for sure whether the verdict was correct...

The Mail 'story' has pissed me off enough for me to make a complaint to the PCC.

I did too. Lazy, irresponsible 'churnalism' should have no place in the world. The PCC, being the toothless beast it is, will probably just shrug it off.

Priene

10-04-2011, 07:07 PM

The Mail 'story' has pissed me off enough for me to make a complaint to the PCC.

You just fractionally increased the wear and tear on your keyboard for nothing.

http://www.mailwatch.co.uk/2011/10/03/invented-eyewitness-accounts/

And will they get into the shit for this?

Knox could sue them. Probably won't, though.

seun

10-04-2011, 07:16 PM

You just fractionally increased the wear and tear on your keyboard for nothing.

Yeah, I know. Had to be done, though.

crunchyblanket

10-04-2011, 07:20 PM

You just fractionally increased the wear and tear on your keyboard for nothing.

Who knows, if enough people get pissed off about it, this could be Moirgate the Second.

Mind you, that went nowhere, so you're probably right...

Priene

10-04-2011, 07:45 PM

Who knows, if enough people get pissed off about it, this could be Moirgate the Second.

Mind you, that went nowhere, so you're probably right...

To be fair (which is much against my nature where the Daily Mail is concerned) all papers probably do stuff like this. They'd say it was a dummy story they had ready to run. They would have replaced the false quotes at the last minute with real ones from the courtroom. The verdict went the other way but some underling in the IT department accidentally posted the wrong story.

Meanwhile, pornographer Richard Desmond's Channel 5 has managed -- apparently, because I can scarcely believe this screen capture isn't fake -- to find an even more (http://yfrog.com/meypgqj) disgusting angle to the story.

seun

10-04-2011, 07:56 PM

Meanwhile, pornographer Richard Desmond's Channel 5 has managed -- apparently, because I can scarcely believe this screen capture isn't fake -- to find an even more (http://yfrog.com/meypgqj) disgusting angle to the story.

Jesus Christ.

crunchyblanket

10-04-2011, 08:18 PM

Perks

10-04-2011, 08:32 PM

Oh, we're right with you with our tabloids over here -

http://www.tmz.com/2011/10/03/amanda-knox-casey-anthony-whod-you-rather/#.TosuGLL1omw

Don

10-04-2011, 09:35 PM

Oh, we're right with you with our tabloids over here -

http://www.tmz.com/2011/10/03/amanda-knox-casey-anthony-whod-you-rather/#.TosuGLL1omw
Amanda's winning, 81% to 19%.

Priene

10-04-2011, 09:42 PM

Too bad Maxine Carr's so mousy. With the right looks, she could have built a great media career.

backslashbaby

10-04-2011, 11:19 PM

From the standpoint of a grieving family, I understand this, but the fact is that there is still someone in jail for the murders, who's been convicted with a fair amount of evidence behind him. If yesterday's verdict was the correct one, he's the only one who can really reveal what happened that night, thought there may well be information Knox and Sollecito haven't shared. If the verdict was incorrect, that's another story.

I guess I just find it far easier to believe, from an Occam's razor standpoint, that a guy they let in off the street committed a horrible act than the whole bizarre sex-and-murder game thing.

I wish he would reveal what happened, but he's changed his story enough that there'd be no way to believe him now.

The Occam's razor thing makes sense, but there is enough evidence that more people were there (and cutting) that night that you'd have to discredit it. (And the evidence against Amanda and Raffaele looks like they lied and changed stories, etc. A great deal of that.) Rudy was friends with the guys downstairs and hung out at a basketball court nearby.

I don't believe it was any sex game thing. I think Meredith was set up to be raped by Guede. I think Raffaele and Amanda were there, and the fights and stabbing went from there. Then, when the neighbor heard that horrible scream and people running off in different directions, that explains that.

[Full disclosure: I had a popular, charming friend of mine set me up to be raped (with a roofie-like drug, a party she knew of, and a conversation with one of the guys there). Her friends would only believe it because of much, much smaller sociopathic things most of them had caught onto. The impossible cruelty from someone so well-liked was one of the hardest parts to wrap my head around.]