Skip to main content

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

An appeals court in Florence on Thursday upheld the guilty verdict against U.S. student Amanda Knox and her ex-boyfriend for the 2007 murder of her British roommate. Knox was sentenced to 28 1/2 years in prison, raising the specter of a long legal battle over her extradition.
I'm unclear on what any "new evidence" might be.

2:59 PM PT: I'm going offline in a bit.  I just posted this because I felt was interesting breaking news.  I don't pretend to know much about the case, but many of your replies are very illuminating and much appreciated,  Thank you.

Back when I can.


Fri Jan 31, 2014 at 5:56 AM PT: Wow - thank you so much for the interesting commentary.  Unfortunately I don't have time today to read very much of it.  So If I didn't reply to you or rec you it's likely that haven't gotten to your post.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (7+ / 0-)

    Suggestion for Facebook: 50 free "starter friends" automatically as soon as you sign up.

    by dov12348 on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 02:27:33 PM PST

  •  "New evidence"?? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    terrybuck, Sylv

    The article you link to does not contain the word "evidence," or anything suggesting that new evidence played a part in the decision.

    Their real God is money-- Jesus just drives the armored car, and his hat is made in China. © 2009 All Rights Reserved

    by oblomov on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 02:33:11 PM PST

  •  If I were in her shoes, I'd be looking to find (8+ / 0-)

    a country that won't extradite to Italy to move to.

  •  There was less "evidence" than before (20+ / 0-)

    The supposed murder weapon (which the investigator picked up from her boyfriend's house on a hunch) turns out not to have any of the victim's blood on it at all.  

    That trial has been a total clown show, read about it to see how not to conduct an investigation.      They know who the murderer is (he left his semen on the body) but unfortunately they had already decided that Amanda was guilty because she didn't seem distressed enough that a roommate who she barely knew had been murdered.

  •  Yes, she is. Their system actually works (4+ / 0-)

    Then again, it's rather blatantly obvious that Amanda Knox was involved in the murder of Meredith Kercher. But still, good to see some measure of justice is being served.

    •  Do you know their system well? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bear83, CatM

      And system aside - maybe it broke down in this case.

      Suggestion for Facebook: 50 free "starter friends" automatically as soon as you sign up.

      by dov12348 on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 02:48:40 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Honestly, you don't seem at all well (3+ / 0-)

        acquainted with this case. There are people (whether or not you consider it a waste of time) who have actually bothered to learn an immense amount of information about it.

        I personally have not, but I've learned enough to know who seems to know what they're talking about.

        And from them, I've seen how blatantly obvious Amanda Knox's and Raffaelle Sollecito's endless lies and contradictions in this case are.

        •  The prosecution's case has changed repeatedly (14+ / 0-)

          and continues to be based on wild conjectures that make no sense, with no physical evidence to support it.

          look for my eSci diary series Thursday evening.

          by FishOutofWater on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 03:03:38 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  there is lots of physical evidence it's just (0+ / 0-)

            that having lived together it can be only be circumstantial, though preponderant

            I understand that her boss testimony was critical, and it would have helped if she could keep her story straight, but se seemed to be a little nutsy, or lying on top of lying

            link

            •  Maybe she couldn't keep her story straight (5+ / 0-)

              because she was held and questioned for hours upon hours without a lawyer present.

              Election Day is Nov 4th, 2014 It's time for the Undo button on the 2010 Election.

              by bear83 on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 03:23:11 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Yeah. People who live with a murder victim (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                i saw an old tree today

                who can't tell a consistent story about where they were the night of the crime and the day after deserve a free pass.

                And they should never be questioned at all.

                Right.

              •  Yes 2 hours is a long time (0+ / 0-)

                'Much has been said about this interrogation in the media. A lot of it is wrong. It is often reported to have been very long, with some stories claiming it lasted either 13 or 18 hours. These are simply untrue. The interrogation did not exceed 2¼ hours. There is also the claim that Amanda was interrogated without an interpreter. Again this is completely untrue. Knox had an interpreter named Anna Donnino, and this is well known since she testified at the trial. There have also been claims that Amanda was denied food and water during her interrogation. The truth is that she was offered tea, and since the interrogation took place from about 11 pm to 1:45 am, and Knox had arrived straight after eating a meal, it is unclear why food was needed. Lastly, Knox claims that she was abused and hit. Knox was unable to even vaguely identify who allegedly hit her. All others present deny that there was any mistreatment. There are claims that Knox was intimidated by a large group of police officers who participated in the interrogation. According to Amanda's own words these are also untrue, as only one female officer, and the interpreter, were present. All of these lies were told by the Knox family, and spread by the public relations firm hired by them to change public sentiment. They needed to misrepresent how the confession was obtained, to make their claim, that it was a false confession believable.'
                link

                The convoluted story as time passed and they turned on each other is too complicated for here, you might read link

                •  Very misleading little summary, there. (5+ / 0-)

                  The interpreter invited the suspect to imagine what might have happened, and suggested that she herself had once been so traumatized that she was unable to remember a difficult experience. She testified to this in court. The interpreter was employed by the police; she was not neutral. She was trying to help them, not the suspect.

                  There was no lawyer present, and there was no recording of these events, neither tape nor video. This was illegal under Italian law, and what was said during those hours was ruled inadmissable. Knox and Sollecito were suspects and entitled to counsel during the night before their arrests. Neither of them had anything to do with the crime, and what happened today is just another in a long, long string of unjust, indefensible wrongs.

            •  There is no physical evidence. (6+ / 0-)

              In the murder room there is the DNA of the actual murderer ( a local thief with no known source of income and a habit of harrassing college girls) on the victim's purse and on her genitalia. His fingerprints in her blood are on the wall of that room. His footprints in her blood are on the floor of it.

              There's no DNA from either of the college students there.

          •  Bullshit. You don't know about the case, and (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Zornorph

            you're spewing lies and misinformation about it.

            You're defending a murderer. Congratulations.

            •  You've already admitted your information is (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              freakofsociety

              second hand. You have not studied this case yourself. You're just parroting what you've been told by others.

              Unfortunately you have been misinformed.

              I suggest you go study up on it yourself, before attacking other people. That would be the logical thing to do.

              Or you could just keep going on and on and on about something you know nothing about. That would be illogical and counterproductive. But hey it's your keyboard. (I assume.)

              ...wispy longings for a time before Elvis and the Beatles, back when "a girl could cook and still would". You know before the troubles.~Hunter.

              by denig on Sat Feb 01, 2014 at 09:27:58 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  Isn't this the third or fourth time (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          freakofsociety, bear83, poco

          you've told me this here?  I've apologized.  Let's move on.

          Suggestion for Facebook: 50 free "starter friends" automatically as soon as you sign up.

          by dov12348 on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 03:10:15 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  LOL (7+ / 0-)

          Here you are positioning yourself as some sort of authority on this case, and then you acknowledge that you have not bothered to learn much about the case--apparently other than what you could find on one anti-Knox blog. You are behaving quite badly and defending your uninformed views with the tenacity of a troll. (Not saying you are a troll, ompnly that you are behaving as badly as one.)

          **Electing Republicans to the government is like hiring pyromaniacs as firemen. They all just want to see everything burn to the ground.**

          by CatM on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 08:48:47 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Sorry, but that's nonsense. (6+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          CatM, bear83, freakofsociety, Sylv, Pluto, vcmvo2

          I live in Seattle and have actually bothered to learn an immense amount of information . . . the consensus here is that the two of them got railroaded.

          It's not even a close call. These two are innocent bystanders.

    •  Ummm okay its blatantly obvious how? (6+ / 0-)

      There's no overt evidence. If you are going to make a claim like that and attack people for thinking she's innocent then back it up.

      "Disappointment is anger for wimps," -Dr. Gregory House

      by freakofsociety on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 05:31:02 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  She wasn't the only (2+ / 0-)

    one on trial. So was Rafaelle Sollecito. They were both found guilty.

  •  amanda knox (7+ / 0-)

    screw them.  their judicial system is like a freak show at an old time circus-everyone trying to make a name for themselves.  the prosecutor is nothing more than a political hack looking to climb the next rung of the ladder.  where is the evidence? none.  

    •  I only know what I read (7+ / 0-)

      I don't care for tv

      The evidence of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito's involvement in the murder of Meredith Kercher

      More than one person attacked Meredith Kercher. From the time of Rudy Guede's final sentencing,[3] the Court has accepted that more than one person attacked Meredith Kercher, with an unusually strong report that pointed towards Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito as the other attackers. Meredith was dressed, awake, and standing for the attack, yet did not defend herself. Unusually, she had no defensive wounds but for three tiny (0.24 inch or 6 mm) cuts on her hand[4], indicating an inability to express normal reflexes, flinch from the small cuts to her neck, or attempt to block the incoming blows with her hands or forearms. Indeed, in addition to wounds which fit two different knife profiles[5], she suffered numerous compression or restraint bruises to her elbows, wrists, and face. At the trial, consultants for Knox and Sollecito each proposed a single-attacker scenario but could not agree whether this lone wolf had attacked from the front (Torre, Amanda's consultant) or from behind (Introna, Raffaele's consultant).[6] At the appeal, under Judge Hellmann, Sollecito's defense team introduced two witnesses to testify first, that Guede had acted with two people other than Knox and Sollecito, and second, that two people excluding Guede had carried out the attack after mistakenly entering the home. The Supreme Court faulted Judge Hellmann for ignoring their sentence of Guede and supporting the single-wolf theory, which they found unsupported by the facts. They direct the new Appeals Court in Florence to see what evidence ties Rudy Guede together with Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito in the cottage at the same time.

      Someone returned to move Meredith. As is detailed by Judge Micheli (who convicted Guede for his part and committed Knox and Sollecito to trial to answer for the evidence of theirs) Meredith's body was discovered in a position and location different from that in which she died, judging by the lividity reported by the medical examiner and an indentation in her shoulder of a bra strap (with a corresponding impression on the floor). She had died and rested on her shoulder to the right of the room, wearing her bra, and was moved to center of the room and her bra discarded at her feet, soaked through but nowhere near any blood. He notes that the blood droplets on the cups show she was wearing the bra while still breathing, but her chest, which the bra had been covering, remained clean, indicating no breaths were being drawn when or after the bra was removed.

      The bra clasp, cut or torn off from the bra the victim was wearing and originally hidden under the victim, had Raffaele's DNA on the hooks. No plausible argument for contamination was successfully made. Stefano Conti, the independent reviewer who testified to this point, could only suppose that "anything is possible." The Supreme Court strongly rejected that finding, and Judge Hellmann's acceptance of it, stating that the contamination must be proven likely, and not merely presented as a hypothetical possibility.

      The knife recovered at Sollecito's apartment contained the victim and Amanda Knox's DNA. In her court testimony Carla Vecchiotti, one of the pair of independent experts who reviewed the DNA evidence at the first appeal, as well as forensic scientists from the Scientific Police, ruled out contamination in the laboratory with respect to the knife, owing to the six-day interval since testing items related to the Kercher case. When confronted with the knife DNA result in 2007, Raffaele responded with a fabricated story about accidentally pricking Meredith's hand while they were cooking together. Meredith had never been to his flat, and they had never cooked together.[7] The Supreme Court ruled the Scientific Police's findings must stand, absent any new proof. Another trace containing human DNA was found on the blade of the knife [8] by the independent reviewers, Stefano Conti and Carla Vecchiotti, who argued the trace was too minute too test, even though renowned forensic expert Professor Novelli argued that newer, more sensitive tests would be quite able to successfully test the sample. This test was performed in October 2013 and found to be Knox's DNA.

      A bare footprint made in the victim's blood was discovered on the mat in the bathroom. Rudy's bloody shoe prints lead from Meredith's room directly down the hall and out the front door. The bathroom print, which could not have been made by Rudy Guede, is highly compatible with Raffaele Sollecito's right foot. His defense expert presented a crudely altered footprint diagram in the Massei court, to try to prove it couldn't be his client's, but the judge ruled it was more compatible with Raffaele, and completely ruled out that it could have been Rudy's.

      Knox's DNA was found mixed with the victim's blood in the room where the burglary was staged, and in the bathroom they shared; some of this blood was Amanda's. Amanda testified that the bathroom was clean the day before the murder.

      Footprints compatible with Knox and Sollecito's, and made in the victim's blood, were discovered when the forensic investigators tested the crime scene with luminol.

      The burglary was staged, and there is no one other than Knox and Sollecito who would have any motivation to alter the crime scene that way. Broken glass had fallen on top of the scattered objects, meaning the window was broken after the ransacking, and Luminol revealed the presence of two traces of the victim's blood on the floor, showing conclusively that whomever had tracked it in had done so after the girl was dead. Raffaele knew nothing had been stolen in the course of this supposed burglary, assuring the 112 (911) operator of this fact well before the occupant of the room had come home and verified it for herself.[9][10]

      Amanda Knox intentionally lied to the police to discourage them from considering Meredith's locked door suspicious. In her email home Amanda relates a scene of rising panic as she and Raffaele shout for Meredith, climb the balcony to try to see in her window, and Raffaele attempts to force the door open, but only splinters the frame. She says it was then they decided to call the cops. Despite all this concern, they did not mention the door, or their worries about Meredith, to the communications police who arrived unexpectedly to return Meredith's discarded cellphones. Filomena and her friends arrived shortly thereafter, and it was Filomena who said that it was not Meredith's habit to lock her door. Amanda falsely offered that this was not true: Meredith had locked it before, even to take a shower. The Supreme Court rules this is in itself proof of an attempt to prevent the discovery of the body, with all the implications that has for her guilt.

      Knox and Sollecito's alibis are contradicted by each other, by physical evidence and by witness testimony. While this does not directly implicate them in the murder, they have clearly lied about what they did on the night of the murder and the following morning. It is inconceivable that they would risk lying about their activities if they were not involved in Meredith's murder. It is one thing to claim they cannot remember due to the influence of drugs. It is another to knowingly lie. The recent ruling confirms that they lied repeatedly.

      Raffaele withdrew support for Knox's alibi, claiming that he lied at her request. He elected to not testify, and he refused to confirm that Knox was with him the night of the murder, for the entire trial. Confronted with the news that Raffaele had ceased to support her alibi, Knox quickly changed her story, placing herself at the cottage and falsely accusing an innocent man of committing the deed.

      Amanda Knox's false accusation of her boss Patrick Lumumba. The appeals court has been directed by the Supreme Court to seriously consider this as yet more evidence of her guilt.
      link

      •  endless, endless lies Amanda told (3+ / 0-)

        Her actions the night of the murder and day of its discovery would set any detective in the world's suspicions off.

        I love how her being interrogated at all for the crime is some source of shame for the Italian judicial system.

        •  seems to me she kept burying herself deeper (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Blicero, protectspice, Zornorph

          with the lies, but there were so many you really need to concentrate to get the scope, it wasn't really made for tv ;)

        •  It would if they did not understand (6+ / 0-)

          If you have ever watched her in an interview, she seriously seems to have an autism spectrum disorder. Her affect is flat, she is relatively expressionless, and she does not react in an emotionally appropriate way. Further, she had been using drugs before her first questioning.

          People on the spectrum often display inappropriate emotion in stressful situations. I have seen my son laugh when he did not find something funny but was instead upset. And maybe she did not feel extremely emotional at the time about what happened or did not know how to process her emotions. I had surgery and talked to my kids from the hospital and they did not even ask how I was.

          I think it is unfair to convict someone just because they don't show the "right" emotions or understand the context of questions--especially when communicating in a foreign language.

          The conviction is garbage and based on the flimsiest of evidence, all of it circumstantial. Most of the supposed evidence presented at the initial trial was recognized as faulty by a higher court in Italy and by U.S. experts.

          The one guy who was convicted left plenty of evidence behind and there is simply no reasonable motive for Knox and her boyfriend to have done what was alleged. She really does not look the type to be so obsessed with wild sex that she would kill someone over it.

          **Electing Republicans to the government is like hiring pyromaniacs as firemen. They all just want to see everything burn to the ground.**

          by CatM on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 04:41:16 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Interestingly, the guy who was convicted (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            freakofsociety, bear83

            got 15 years and she got 28 years.

            What is that about?

          •  You don't know anything about the case (2+ / 0-)

            It's obvious "flimsiest of evidence."

            This isn't about the "spectrum" or your son. Sorry. This is about someone who is involved in a murder.

            Do you really think the Italian judges involved in this case are all lunatics out for a vendetta?

            Do you really think the detectives who noticed Knox and Sollecito couldn't (and still can't) tell a consistent story about what they were doing the night of the murder or the day of the discovery are persecuting Amanda because of her odd affect?

            Do you know anything about the sequence of events the day the body was found - the phone call evidence, the police arrival - that contradicts Amanda's story completely?

            "flimsiest of evidence." What bullshit.

            •  I clearly know more than you (8+ / 0-)

              You seem to know only one side. Yes, I think the prosecutor is a lunatic with an obsession for sex crimes and imaginary satanism. I think the first judge was an idiot, but idiot judges are not unique to Italy.

              And considering how often Berlusconi got away with things or suffered a slap on the wrist, I am not too impressed with the Italian justice system.

              Further, I disagree it is not about someone on the spectrum, and I would add fuck you, but it would not be polite. Knox is not a murderer. She appears to be someone with significant social deficits and lack of common sense, perceived as odd, which was somehow twisted into her being a murderer. Being odd does not make one a murderer. Not responding as others think you should does not make you a murderer. (I don't think Todd Willingham killed his kids, either.)

              Leaving your bloody handprints under the victim's pillow, your bloody footprints, your crap in the victim's toilet, and your DNA in the victim's body before fleeing the country does implicate you in murder. Not to mention admitting being at the scene and confessing to your cellmates, as Guede did.

              Are you a friend of the crackpot attorney or something? Be ause you sure talk like it.

              For the record, I think the judges who overturned the guilty verdict were the only ones interested in justice. Convicting innocent people does not honor the victim.

              **Electing Republicans to the government is like hiring pyromaniacs as firemen. They all just want to see everything burn to the ground.**

              by CatM on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 08:39:53 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  As if (0+ / 0-)

                saying "I would say fuck you" and saying "fuck you" are not the same thing. If you're going to say it, then say it - don't pretend you're being polite.

                You seem at least as emotionally invested in the case as Blicero. Are YOU the friend of someone involved?

                •  I think you didn't read everything here (4+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  freakofsociety, vcmvo2, AmBushed, denig

                  First, I was disagreeing without personal insults throughout the discourse until the blowhard in this thread personally insulted me about my view of her autistic spectrum behaviors, comparing them with what I know through managing my autistic children.

                  Second, you mistake pointed argument for emotion. Emotion is when you, as Blicerio or whatever his name has done, keeps saying the same thing without offering any facts or refuting/acknowledging information presented to counter his.

                  Then I discovered he was personally insulting people up and down this thread for disagreeing with him, so I find your defense of this individual seriously misplaced.

                  Third, I am a professional writer and editor and am well aware that the way I worded it communicated my profane sentiment. My point was to emphasize that it is out of character for me to do so and that I would rather not but he deserved it.

                  (Please excuse the typos. Typing on my tablet bites.)

                  Oh, and I do not know anyone involved with the case, but as a woman with Asperger's, I empathize with Knox (seems contradictory, I know). I know what it feels like to have "normal" people misunderstand your atypical behavior, attribute viewpoints to you that you don't have, and single you out for not acting the way they think you should. As a mother of kids on the spectrum, I know what it is like to have people judge your children or judge you as a parent for autistic behaviors. I see a lot of spectrum behaviors in Knox and would bet money that she is probably on the spectrum. But even if she is not, I do not agree with judging someone as guilty of murder because you think they acted strange or said something you never would have and not because of actual solid evidence.

                  Then there is that Asperger quality of a strong dislike of unfairness that makes me feel Knox should be defended against self-admitted uninformed belligerents like Blicero.

                  **Electing Republicans to the government is like hiring pyromaniacs as firemen. They all just want to see everything burn to the ground.**

                  by CatM on Fri Jan 31, 2014 at 03:59:22 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  As someone else on the spectrum (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    CatM, AmBushed, denig

                    I have to rec you and say well said. I can so easily picture myself being in Amandas place. My behaviors are misunderstood all the time. And I wouldnt have called the police right away either. I probably wouldve acted similarly to the way Amanda acted. :(

                    "Disappointment is anger for wimps," -Dr. Gregory House

                    by freakofsociety on Fri Jan 31, 2014 at 05:24:22 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Exactly! (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      freakofsociety, denig

                      When I was 13, my parents left my 12-year-old stepsister and I home alone with my 2-year-old brother. He got out of his crib and we heard him fall down the stairs. She went running to him, and I ran the other away because I was afraid he might be hurt.

                      It took my boyfriend years to understand my kids were not being deliberately disrespectful or ungrateful or lazy. He still struggles with that and always tries to ascribe what would have been his motives as a teen to them.

                      Knox acted very unconventionally and the gravity of the situation seemed to not sink in. She tried to give them the answers they wanted while still being honest, which I can relate to as an abused kid who was frequently interrogated harshly by my parents and felt a lot of pressure to guess what they wanted me to say--often guessing wrong, I might add. Knox's stories sounded odd because they were not creative lies like a normal person would have told that actually sound plausible. To me, that makes her sound more credible...and more autistic. A normal liar would have said emphatically, "No, I was at this place the whole night," and then fabricated a ton of details about what they were thinking or doing while they were there.

                      **Electing Republicans to the government is like hiring pyromaniacs as firemen. They all just want to see everything burn to the ground.**

                      by CatM on Fri Jan 31, 2014 at 05:40:53 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Yes I really feel for her (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        denig, CatM

                        I would so have gotten falsely accused like that if it were me. :( It's the story of my life. One time I was lost and a cop car was driving me and its signal was on and I didn't stop right away. When I finally stopped he berated me for not stopping. I go "I'm sorry I didn't know you were behind me I was lost and scared."

                        "Disappointment is anger for wimps," -Dr. Gregory House

                        by freakofsociety on Sat Feb 01, 2014 at 10:09:08 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

            •  The only thing that's clear (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              freakofsociety, CatM, vcmvo2, AmBushed

              is the lack of solid evidence, the mishandling of DNA evidence, and the apparent vendetta on the part of the prosecutor.

              Knox is innocent until proven guilty. The Italian prosecutor has not proven his case.

              Election Day is Nov 4th, 2014 It's time for the Undo button on the 2010 Election.

              by bear83 on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 09:46:55 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  Kind of like you *nt* (0+ / 0-)

          **Electing Republicans to the government is like hiring pyromaniacs as firemen. They all just want to see everything burn to the ground.**

          by CatM on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 08:45:28 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  crime details (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        i saw an old tree today, Blicero

        thanks for the detail and link.  still not clear about the motive?

        •  One, people kill without motive. That's (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          i saw an old tree today

          simply a fact of life. Not having a good motive should not be an excuse for committing murder.

          That said, there are some very plausible motives that have been put forth that have nothing to do with "demonic games" or whatever bullshit people are spewing to confuse the issue.

          I would focus on the facts of the case, and the actions of the defendants the night of the crime and the day after.

          •  Agree, though it seems likely there was something (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Blicero

            Kinky happening, and there is evidence (Sollecito's dna on Meredith's bra, eg), and true, kinky happens all the time and doesn't lead to murder

            But isn't that why Amanda tried blaming the hash there for a bit, she was messed up?

          •  motive for meredits murder (4+ / 0-)

            of course. i know that people kill without motive. i've read your post and researched a couple of links.  it seems difficult to get a clear picture of what may have happened.  there seems to be a lot of loose ends which is what takes place when even one person isn't telling the truth.  there just isn't enough there for me to say one way or another.

            •  There are always loose ends in life (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              i saw an old tree today

              And Amanda told so many stories it's impossible to keep them straight. This causes confusion which could be mistaken for "loose ends.

              Ask yourself this: If a detective asked you where you were last night and this morning, would you be able to tell a reasonably consistent story?

              Amanda Knox couldn't, and still can't.

              She is absolutely guilty.

            •  It seems Sollecito, Knox and a 3rd guy (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              freakofsociety

              were messed up (admitted, it was Halloween and they were partying), that the men started messing sexually with Kircher, that Kircher resisted and with that things got out of control

              Multiple attackers:
              "No one would remain still and allow themselves to be repeatedly cut. Since we know that the attack happened with Meredith upright the only way to explain these light cuts is if Meredith was restrained from behind while someone else attacked her from the front. This was probably Rudy since his DNA was found on her jacket arm and on the backside of her bra strap. The bruising on Meredith's arms is from Rudy holding her from behind while either Amanda or Raffaele Sollecito|Raffaele]], or both attacked Meredith from the front."
              link

              The 3rd guy, fled but was found and plead down:
              "Two days after the murder, on November 3, Guede fled Perugia by train to Germany.[13] From an Internet café, he had a Skype conversation with his friend Giacomo Benedetti who was co-operating with the Italian police. This gave his first version of his account of the evening of the murder.[14] By this time, the Scientific Police had identified his presence at the murder scene by his bloody handprint which matched one they had on file from his application for citizenship. An International Arrest Warren was issued, and Guede was arrested in Germany on November 19."
              link

        •  it did seem to be kinky, the two guys there (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Blicero

          did seem to play some role - Sollecito being one of them

        •  There was no motive for Amanda and Raffaele. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          freakofsociety, CatM, vcmvo2

          The motive for the actual killer was originally burglary (he was unemployed and had no known source of income). It's likely that the victim surprised him in the house. Her bad luck.

          Amanda and Raffaele were a few blocks away at his flat.

      •  Most of that is not true (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        katienne, Pluto, freakofsociety, bear83, 2kate2

        I am not sure where it came from, but most of it is not true or taimted by shoddy police work. It also igmores the fact that a third person was convicted and is the only person whom the physical evidence links to the crime. Knox was convicted because, in my opinion, she is on the spectrum and did not react in a way most people would understand.

        **Electing Republicans to the government is like hiring pyromaniacs as firemen. They all just want to see everything burn to the ground.**

        by CatM on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 04:33:45 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  It comes from here (0+ / 0-)

          'The Murder of Meredith Kercher is a project launched as an effort to address the confusion surrounding the current trials in Italy, presented without falsehoods or hyperbole. ...

          This site is volunteer-driven and is meant to improve the signal-to-noise ratio of discussion about the case. We will never accept donations. '

          There is a great deal of authentic documentation, hope you read up; Rudy Guede's conviction is discussed, in addition to the other physical evidence (linkling clearly Sollecito and probably Knox, in addition to Guede), testimonies, testimony withdrawals, timelines and so forth~it is very detailed

          link

          Whether Knox has Aspergers doesn't explain her going back to mop up, her footprints in the blood, lying about her boss (I have Aspergers and I find lying impossible, it is waaay too difficult) -- where do you get your information?

      •  I wouldn't trust that website. (7+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        CatM, Pluto, Sylv, freakofsociety, scon40, 2kate2, bear83

        One of the problems with this case is that there is a group of anonymous internet commenters who have spent YEARS demonizing Amanda Knox. They have three discussion websites, as well as this fake wiki. It is filled with a number of untrue things.

        Of course, there is also a group who have spent the same years online defending her. They have put together a wiki debunking that wiki at
        Www.murderofmeredithkercher.com

        While old, this Rolling Stone article is a good introduction to the case.

      •  Your "evidence" is inaccurate and debunked (7+ / 0-)

        http://lareviewofbooks.org/...

        The problem, however, is that this story relies on evidence that has long ago been debunked. Nadeau refers to the bloodspots outside Meredith’s room that were described at one time as containing Kercher and Knox’s “mixed” DNA. That Knox’s DNA would be mixed with Meredith’s blood wouldn’t be surprising, given that they lived in the house together. But the prosecutors presented this mixed DNA as something that could only happen if Knox’s blood were mixed with Kercher’s blood. Nadeau lets this misrepresentation stand and she does the same thing with the footprints in the hallway. There were two small bare footprints outside Kercher’s room that were once thought to have been Knox’s, and to have been left in blood; a chemical called luminol detects the possibility of cleaned-up blood and the use of this chemical uncovered these footprints. But luminol only indicates the possibility of cleaned-up blood rather than the certainty of it; it reacts with a number of other substances, including rust, urine, and the bleach in the bleach-based cleaning product Knox and Kercher used on their floors. Follow-up tests with tetramethylbenzidine came up negative for blood on these footprints, but Nadeau doesn’t mention this.

        **Electing Republicans to the government is like hiring pyromaniacs as firemen. They all just want to see everything burn to the ground.**

        by CatM on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 04:50:54 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Amanda Knox has issued a statement: (7+ / 0-)
          First and foremost it must be recognised that there is no consolation for the Kercher family. Their grief over Meredith’s terrible murder will follow them forever. They deserve respect and support.

          "I am frightened and saddened by this unjust verdict. Having been found innocent before, I expected better from the Italian justice system. The evidence and accusatory theory do not justify a verdict of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Rather, nothing has changed. There has always been a marked lack of evidence. My family and I have suffered greatly from this wrongful persecution.

          "This has got out of hand. Most troubling is that it was entirely preventable. I beseech those with the knowledge and authority to address and remediate the problems that worked to pervert the course of justice and waste the valuable resources of the system: overzealous and intransigent prosecution, prejudiced and narrow-minded investigation, unwillingness to admit mistake, reliance on unreliable testimony and evidence, character assassination, inconsistent and unfounded accusatory theory, and counterproductive and coercive interrogation techniques that produce false confessions and inaccurate statements.

          "Clearly a wrongful conviction is horrific for the wrongfully accused, but it is also terribly bad for the victim, their surviving family, and society."

          There are certainly a lot of hate sites out there. Including the wacky one cited by Blicero in this thread.

          The Wiki, below, gives some clarity:

          http://www.injusticeinperugia.org


          “The Internet is the first thing that humanity has built that humanity doesn't understand, the largest experiment in anarchy that we have ever had.” ― Eric Schmidt

          by Pluto on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 05:12:36 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  Italian legal system (5+ / 0-)

    Verdicts in Italian courts automatically go to the Supreme Court. In this case they ordered a retrial after the initial verdict of not guilty.

    This guilty verdict will now go back to the Supreme Court for considerations. Given that they ordered the retrial in the first place, it is unlikely that they will quash the conviction.

    The Knox family have done a good number on the US media to push the case that either she is innocent or to impugn the Italian legal system.

    We will work, we will play, we will laugh, we will live. We will not waste one moment, nor sacrifice one bit of our freedom, because of fear.

    by Lib Dem FoP on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 02:49:38 PM PST

  •  Going by the comments on the HuffPost article (3+ / 0-)

    There will now be a tendency to indulge in an orgy of American Exceptionalism at its slimiest:

    How dare a foreign country condemn an American for a crime committed on its soil?

    A foreign country that condemns an American must have a corrupt justice system !

    Amanda Fox ought to thank her lucky stars that she wasn't found guilty in, say, Texas, where she would have finished up fried in The Chair or given a nasty lethal injection - Italy does not have the death penalty.

    We're shocked by a naked nipple, but not by naked aggression.

    by Lepanto on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 03:00:18 PM PST

    •  It's mind blowing watching people defend (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      i saw an old tree today

      a murderer. And a rather obvious murderer at that.

      It's not solely an "American Exceptionalism" thing, because there are Amanda Knox supporters everywhere.

      Maybe it just feels good to throw out opinions when you have no idea about a situation. Who knows.

      All I know is Amanda Knox and Raffaelle Sollecito repeatedly lied about what they were doing the night of the murder and the day after. They contradicted each other's story repeatedly. Objective facts (such as phone records) prove they lied.

      I wish people would learn about the case before spouting off about it.

    •  I doubt a Texas jury would have let her go, based (0+ / 0-)

      the evidence, and her testimony

    •  you mean reconvict someone (5+ / 0-)

      after finding them innocent? It's a beautiful system. Just keep trying until you manage to convict.

      How dare people view that system as anything but great because it's not American.

      •  We overturn appeals in America (0+ / 0-)

        Which is what happened in Italy today, please see my other comment to yours

        •  This doesn't really line us.. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          freakofsociety, Pluto, vcmvo2

          When someone is found "not guilty" in the U.S. the prosecutor does not get to appeal that decision. It is done. Double jeopardy attaches. Now if a conviction is reversed on appeal, then there may be a re-trial, but that is a different story.

          Personally, I would say there is virtually no chance that Knox will be extradited if her conviction is upheld. Just no way that happens with all the weirdness that has taken place with the trial and with her being re-tried after the not-guilty ruling and subsequently found guilty.

          •  I wouldn't say NO chance, but I have to say that (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            vcmvo2

            there are enough irregularities here that I find myself pretty fascinated by the whole thing, and this isn't a legal judgment but instead a gut feeling that the Italians are not going to be motivated to go to the mat over this.

            I claim no knowledge as to her guilt or innocence, but I do have deep skepticism in quality of the conviction itself.  I don't know if she would've been convicted had she been tried in a US court, but I do know that enough of the wacky practices I've heard in the Italian proceedings make me exceedingly skittish about the quality of her conviction (a judge in the US that made offhand and judgmental comments about a defendant's testimony as Knox's appellate judge did would be such a serious due process violation that it could easily lead to a retrial).

            But I can't imagine that the extradition treaty requires that an Italian trial be conducted to the standards of US criminal procedure, either, else the extradition treaty wouldn't be worth the paper it was written on.

            "The first drawback of anger is that it destroys your inner peace; the second is that it distorts your view of reality. If you come to understand that anger is really unhelpful, you can begin to distance yourself from anger." - The Dalai Lama

            by auron renouille on Fri Jan 31, 2014 at 06:41:05 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Her conviction was reversed on appeal. She (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            pdkesq

            was never acquitted.  There's no double jeopardy problem here.  

            •  Yeah I missed that... (0+ / 0-)

              the first time I read through this whole saga. Embarrassing.  But thanks for pointing that out. :)

              I still don't think the U.S. will extradite her.  More to the point, I don't know that the Italians will ask. Is it worth risking the possible international incident that a request and rejection might cause? Probably not.  Best guess is that something gets worked out through the back channels and that will be that.

  •  tipped for your respect to commenters (6+ / 0-)
  •  I want to know how Knox was found guilty (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    CatM, freakofsociety, bear83, 2kate2, Pluto

    in the first place...in the US there wouldn't even be enough evidence to present a case, let alone convict her

  •  The New York Review of Books had an excellenbt (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    CatM, freakofsociety

    article that convinced me that the case against Knox was insubstantial.  I don't; remember any of it, but it was good.

    The dossier on my DKos activities during the Bush administration will be presented on February 3, 2014.

    by Inland on Fri Jan 31, 2014 at 11:50:19 AM PST

    •  Have a link? I've largely been convinced that, (0+ / 0-)

      regardless of her moral guilt, the conviction and the process led to it were rotten by modern legal standards.  But I recognize that even a shoddy process can still reach the correct conclusion.

      "The first drawback of anger is that it destroys your inner peace; the second is that it distorts your view of reality. If you come to understand that anger is really unhelpful, you can begin to distance yourself from anger." - The Dalai Lama

      by auron renouille on Fri Jan 31, 2014 at 06:42:57 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Man if there's anything (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    freakofsociety, auron renouille

    that will stir up an instant internet argument, it's debating the results of a murder trial.  Guaranteed.

  •  knox and soliccito's innocence (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    denig

    for the past couple of days i have read countless articles on the case.  there are many myths about the case that should be considered.
          the man who killed merideth suffers from a disassociative behavior disorder. this basically means he was out of control. he many not have intended to kill meridith but it is likely that she struggled with him when he stabbed her.  none of the knives presented by the police could have made the cuts.  the scene was mishandled by the police.  the police, even before performing forensic analysis created their own version of events which have never proven to be entirely true.  the killer told the police that knox and her boyfriend were not there. to think that one out of control person could not have acted alone is ridiculous. the killer seemed to have changed his story to curry favor with the justice system.  there wasn't enough dna to prove that either knox or her boyfriend were a party to this crime.  the case has taken on a life of its own which has little bearing to the actual evidence but a considerable amount of bearing on the ego of the prosecutor and the italian justice system.  if this had happened in america, it is highly unlikely that either knox of her boyfriend would be in a position to defend themselves about  a point of view that lends itself more to reasonable doubt than anything else.  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site