December 04, 2009
Amanda Knox found guilty

I haven't been following every moment of the Amanda Knox trial but I've followed it enough to be of the opinion that what happened in Perugia today was a tragedy.

Yes, there was some evidence that indicated Knox may have been involved. Chances are she isn't completely innocent but anyone accused of a crime rarely is. The travesty in my mind is that she and her boyfriend appear far from guilty and, even in Italy, the accused must be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Furthermore, there has been so much that has gone wrong with this trial that, had it been held in the US a mistrial would have been declared long ago. From the charges of abuse of power leveled against the prosecutor, Giuliano Mignini, to the contaminated evidence, there was just too much that didn't make sense.

Knox's defense attorney, Luciano Ghirga, referring to the fact that Knox could have been sentenced to life, said it well. "I am not at peace. They didn't have the courage to go all the way. It is a judicial compromise."

Our own Maria Cantwell also offered a theory that I considered as well. "I have serious questions about the Italian justice system and whether anti-Americanism tainted this trial."

I commend Senator Cantwell for having the courage to say what a lot of folks might not consider politically correct and for pledging to follow up through diplomatic channels so all that is possible may be done to resolve this in a way preferable to Knox.

And speaking of American political response to the verdict, I actually feel for President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton here. They will have a fine line to walk.

If they do nothing they're allowing the justice system of an ally to take its course. Considering the way Obama has dealt with the world (bowing to foreign leaders, etc.) this past year, this may be what happens. Maybe a good idea if they don't want to appear to be forcing America's will on Italy. A bad idea because they'd be allowing a US citizen to go to prison for 25 years for a crime it's uncertain she committed.

Of course, if they do intervene, the opposite is true. They'll be coming to the rescue of Knox but Italians might accuse America of trying to push its weight around and being conceited.

The best idea, no joke, would be to send someone like Bill Clinton (or maybe, and I say this with tongue-in-cheek, Jesse Jackson). He did well freeing the Americans in North Korea.

But let's hope that it doesn't need to come to this. Let's hope that Knox will be found not guilty on appeal and allowed to return to the United States by next Christmas.

Posted by MarkGriswold at December 04, 2009 04:30 PM | Email This
Comments
1. I have read things here and there about this trial, but am not familiar with all the details by any means. I did read she gave conflicting stories about what happened, to the authorities, which is never a good sign. What are the strongest known details of the case which support that she was innocent?

Posted by: Michele on December 4, 2009 06:24 PM
2. I'm not convinced too that she is guilty. There is definitely some suspicious behavior on her part,but I don't buy the prosecution's sex game gone wrong theory. As far as I can tell Amanda and Rafaele barely even knew Rudy Guede, which seems weird that they would choose participate in a sex game together.

In response to michele, I think the strongest case for amanda is:
1. No motive
2. No previous criminal history
3. No reputable DNA found in crime scene. None at all on Meredith's body (unlike Rudy Guede)

Posted by: Christine on December 4, 2009 06:40 PM
3. Michele -

I have been following the case, and I am devastated by the verdict. There is no evidence that she is innocent, because there is no alibi - there just is not any evidence that she is guilty, and the motive/story is the most far fetched I've ever heard.

Theory1: Guede alone did it:
He had a known history of crime and violence towards women. His DNA found all over Meridith's body and on her bra, bloody handprint and footprints. He is known to carry a knife. He fled to Germany, he was at the party Meridith was last seen at.

Theory2: Amanda convinced Sollecito and Guede to rape Meridith because Meridith complained about Knox's hygiene. The rape went to far so they had to kill Meridith to silence her. Knox and Sollecito clean up all evidence of their presence but manage to leave evidence of Guede.

The "evidence" here:

*Knox's "confession" - it was police who suggested that Lamumba was involved and told her that she must be forgetting because she was traumatized. After 40 hours she gave in and blamed Lamumba, startingf with the words "I confusedly remember..."

*Knife - kitchen knife that knox had used & had her DNA on it. Had no blood, and blood is near impossible to remove (harder than DNA.). The knife tested positive for a small amount of Kercher's DNA, but such a small amount it would not be considered significant in a US court. Anytime you test a piece of evidence there is a small chance that it will be contaminated, multiply that by the dozens of knives tested and it's not all that surprising. The knife could not have made 2 out of 3 of the stab wounds (all could have been made with a smaller knife) and the knife did not match a bloody knife-print at the crime scene. Also, the prosecution believes the decision to kill Meridith was spontaneous, making it hard to believe that a knife from Sollecito's home would have been used.

* bra clasp - the only evidence placing either of the defendants at the crime scene was a bra clasp that had been left on the floor for 6 weeks. It got so dirty that it changed color. It was found to have a small amount of Sollecito's DNA, too small for a retest. Remember Guede's DNA was all over the bra.

* Phones turned off during the whole night.

* Computer that might have provided an alibi fried by the prosecution

* Sloppy police work - touching the victim's wounds, using the same swab in multiple places, transporting evidence in shoeboxes, failing to change gloves, not collecting evidence for weeks ...

* Extreme character assassination, blamed for strange behavior

Posted by: Allie on December 4, 2009 07:12 PM
4. I was just reading up on this last night. It appears that the really wanted to vilify Knox as an American socialite. But all of the info I could find on her back here in the states showed she was pretty much a normal girl of that age.

My theory based on frantic calls to her parents, etc. is that she ended up at the crime scene after the crime in a panic, and ended up accidentally tainting some of the evidence, and/ or foolishly trying to tamper with the evidence based on her guilty feelings of what she might have said that drove Guede to kill Kercher. And Guede was already convicted of the crime. It doesn't appear that Amanda was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

A fair trial in a formerly fascist state is unlikely. Look what they did to Oriana Fallaci. One more reason the US still is the best place to live.

Posted by: Jeff B. on December 4, 2009 08:16 PM
5. Typical America! Make the criminal out to be the victim! Fortunately, that's not how it works in Europe. Americans cannot impose their dysfunctional legal system on other governments, thank God. All these self-righteous Americans trying to defend this homicidal nymphomaniac named Amanda Knox are sickening and pathetic. Regardless of American justice, which is an absolute joke, Amanda Knox was found guilty of murder and sentenced to prison. Europe and the rest of the world is safer without this sex-crazed murderer on the loose. She is quite lucky to have been given such a light sentence, and many of us sympathetic to her victim feel this sociopathic murderer named Amanda Knox deserves far worse. Her family should be ashamed of her, not out of control with rage at the criminal justice system. Congratulations to Italy for realizing justice, and our sympathies are with Meredith's family.

Posted by: Tom on December 4, 2009 09:05 PM
6. While in a foreign country, you are subject to its laws. Penalties for violating local foreign laws, even unknowingly, can be more severe than in the U.S. for similar offenses.

Stupid Americans like Amanda Knox often seem to think they can go to other countries and do whatever they please, only to find out too late that neither the US Department of State nor anyone else can do nothing to help them when they are arrested and charged with a crime committed abroad.

Posted by: Frank L. on December 4, 2009 09:37 PM
7. While in a foreign country, you are subject to its laws. Penalties for violating local foreign laws, even unknowingly, can be more severe than in the U.S. for similar offenses.

Amanda Knox should have known that before she went to Italy. Italy gave Amanda Knox all lawful aid and protections required before convicting her of the murder of a British national.

The US is unable to do anything about it.

Americans often seem to think they can go to other countries and do whatever they please and generally abuse their rights and the rights of others, only to find out too late that neither the US nor anyone else can do anything to help them when they are arrested and charged abroad.

Posted by: M.R. on December 4, 2009 09:45 PM
8. Frank,

Yes - we are subject to foreign laws, however, MURDER is illegal in this country to. Your argument is irrelevant, Amanda is not claiming to not have known that it was illegal to murder someone...she is saying she didn't do it.

Italian law requires that she be proven guilty, even if you assume everything about her the prosecutor says is true, the only thing they proved is that she was a horny-stoned twenty year old. All of the rest of it was pure fantasy.

Posted by: Ricky R on December 4, 2009 09:57 PM
9. Frank,

Yes - we are subject to foreign laws, however, MURDER is illegal in this country to. Your argument is irrelevant, Amanda is not claiming to not have known that it was illegal to murder someone...she is saying she didn't do it.

Italian law requires that she be proven guilty, even if you assume everything about her the prosecutor says is true, the only thing they proved is that she was a horny-stoned twenty year old. All of the rest of it was pure fantasy.

Posted by: Ricky R on December 4, 2009 09:57 PM
10. #6 & 7 have the same email address

Posted by: Michele on December 4, 2009 09:58 PM
11. I am fairly confident that the Italian judicial system is not worse than the US one. If you want politicians to get involved in justice, you should better begin from your own country, where you can easily get on death row, especially if you have the wrong skin colour (and tipically, Knox wrongly accused a black man thinking the thing should have worked in Italy as it would have in US).

You can get any top politician involved, but she will not be released as the Italian judicial system is completely separated from government. No minister has the power to set her free. Only the president could grant a pardon, but anyway not if appeals are pending, and it is absolutely unlikely to grant a pardon if the best part of a sentence was not served.

Posted by: Luca L. on December 4, 2009 10:00 PM
12. She changed her story multiple time and that's a problem. It means she had something to hide. If she wasn't one of the murderers, she was an accomplice. If she wasn't a murderer, she would have called the police/medics rightaway. She did not.

It's telling to read how easy it is to bash the Italian justice system after the verdict. If you don't like or can't respect a country's laws, don't go there. Bad apples are everywhere, so stop defending them.

Rakesh Sharma, San Mateo, US

Posted by: Rakesh Sharma on December 4, 2009 10:02 PM
13. This is a bad situation for both families. No real winner here.

It seems that a lot of people commenting about this, either on this blog or others, are judging the criminal proceedings based on the standards of American law. Let's not forget, just because she's a US citizen, she's not entitled to be prosecuted by US laws. Italy is a sovereign nation that has the power to prosecute those it believes to have committed a crime in their country by using their laws. Just because US laws/procedural standards weren't used/met doesn't mean the opinion of the Italian judicial system and Italian jury should be discarded.

She and her family still have the appeals process. Let's hope Italy's version of the Court of Appeals can properly review the way the case was handled and come to the right conclusion, whatever that is.

Posted by: Tony on December 4, 2009 10:13 PM
14. "Frank L." and "M.R." (aka, the same person), if you're going to make irrelevant arguments (as Ricky so keenly pointed out) that's fine. There's no law against being a moron. At least have the courage to post under one name instead of trying to appear as if there is more support for your argument.

Posted by: MarkGriswold on December 4, 2009 10:14 PM
15. There is no such thing as "skin colour" in the United States, and the only wrong color recognized by law is pale yellow. It is illegal to discriminate against any other color.

Anyways, am I the only one noticing the comment supporting her cite a lack of evidence, and the comments condemning provide none? As far as I've seen, the only things linking her to the crime are that she existed in the same house and she behaved strangely. I'm pretty sure most people think I'm acting in a contemporaneously different manner than they would in most cases, so I'm pretty much toast if I'm ever charged with anything in Italy or Britain. I just hope when they overturn my conviction in 20 years, that they don't charge me room and board.

Posted by: Submit on December 4, 2009 10:39 PM
16. To 12 above: hard to know just how fast "right away" would be by your definition. Another alternative besides the ones you outline: she was in a hazy state from various factors: too much partying, too much loving, too much marijuana, too much whatever. This could be why she changed her story: she was just plain confused about what happened, her memory was literally drugged.

Posted by: Commentator on December 4, 2009 11:26 PM
17. That, Commentator, and the fact that the police/prosecution had her locked up in a holding cell for endless hours trying to force a confession out of her.

Funny how when the CIA throws a little water on a known terrorist's face to get him to talk liberals like Frank L. and Luca go nuts and cry "human rights!" but when the Italians hold a 22 year old girl without an attorney (as is allowed by law even in Italy) and force a confession they say the US shouldn't be telling Italy how to run their legal system and the girl deserves all she got and more. Pathetic.

Posted by: MarkGriswold on December 4, 2009 11:56 PM
18. There's a lot of 'what if's floating around. A lot of arrogance. Why do Americans think that they can saunter in and lift her out. As everyone has been saying, Italy's laws have to be respected, even if you disagree with the judgment.

You all seem to be ignoring the fact that a young girl dies. Justice must be served.

If I were you I would be thankful that Europe doesn't use the barbaric death penalty.

Posted by: AJC on December 5, 2009 12:48 AM
19. Wow, who let in all the Euroweenies?

Look: if she did it, I agree she belongs in jail. If she did what she is accused of here, she would be in jail also.

But if you're asking me to accept the premise that if our roles were reversed -- that an Italian girl, 20 years old, came here, and was convicted on (what appears to be) rather flimsy evidence, and sentenced to 20+ years in prison, that Europeans would just shrug and go about their business?

Please.

Posted by: jvon on December 5, 2009 01:22 AM
20. To #17, MarkGriswold: are you implying Ms. Knox was tortured? Do you really think a murder investigation is like Guantanamo? Nonsense.

Posted by: Luca L. on December 5, 2009 01:25 AM
21. I'm not American i'm English so i'm not biased and even I can see major flaws with the prosecutions case.

Rather than following the evidence to the killer they seemed determined to fit whatever flimsy evidence they could use to match this lurid tabloid version of the Miss Knox.

Posted by: Benji on December 5, 2009 02:53 AM
22. right TOM stupid Americans and their demand for DNA evidence.... or any evidence would do in this case. the only sex crazed person involved is the prosecutor; and he is anti-sex crazed. like you Tom.

Posted by: ooo ooo on December 5, 2009 04:21 AM
23. Sorry, the Italian system of justice requires that you prove you are innocent. You are assumed guilty when you go to trail.
It is different than our system.
Check it out.

Posted by: Steve on December 5, 2009 05:33 AM
24. Sorry, the Italian system of justice requires that you prove you are innocent. You are assumed guilty when you go to trail.
It is different than our system.
Check it out.

Posted by: Steve on December 5, 2009 05:33 AM
25. Sorry, the Italian system of justice requires that you prove you are innocent. You are assumed guilty when you go to trail.
It is different than our system.
Check it out.

Posted by: Steve on December 5, 2009 05:33 AM
26. Steve, maybe when Mussulini was in charge. Now, not even close. While there system isn't exactly like ours it's pretty close and there is still presumption of innocence.

Posted by: MarkGriswold on December 5, 2009 05:46 AM
27. I'm not convinced that she's innocent. Neither am I convinced that she's guilty. What I am convinced of is that the Italian justice system is a joke and has botched beyond all belief any chance of anyone ever truly figuring it out.

The police botched this investigation and were incredibly sloppy, and the prosecutor is a witch-hunting petty tyrant of a religious nut who I hope is convicted of all the things he himself is currently under investigation for. And this whole thing of not sequestering the jury for a whole year and allowing them to be exposed to the joke that is the European media (you guys think the American press is bad?) didn't help anything. Seriously, if this was an Italian girl in U.S. courts, a mistrial would already have been declared she would already be home in Italy and probably suing for malicious prosecution (especially if her prosecutor was like this crack-job).

And Luca L... much of the claimed "torture" at Guantanamo included such horrible acts as [gasp] keeping detainees awake for days on end. That's fine for enemy combatants your trying to get intelligence from. But keeping a 20 y/o girl up for days on end (40 hours straight interrogation + however long she had already been up) doesn't fly. I wouldn't call it torture, but it is the same thing the world is having a hissy fit over when we do it to people picked up on the battlefield.

Posted by: Mike H on December 5, 2009 06:27 AM
28. Yeah, send Bill Clinton to sort it out. Perhaps he could spring her and they could shack up in Italy and play "sex games". Then we'd be free of the both of them.

Posted by: Saltherring on December 5, 2009 06:30 AM
29. What does being an American have to do with this case? You're blaming Amanda Knox's father for defending his daughter? Furthermore, what does Guantanamo have to do with this case? I simply love how Europeans assume they are the authority on "American" way of life. I think you are just glad to see an American jailed, whether she is guilty or not.

Posted by: Jill on December 5, 2009 06:54 AM
30. What does being an American have to do with this case? You're blaming Amanda Knox's father for defending his daughter? Furthermore, what does Guantanamo have to do with this case? I simply love how Europeans assume they are the authority on "American" way of life. I think you are just glad to see an American jailed, whether she is guilty or not.

Posted by: Jill on December 5, 2009 06:56 AM
31. Italian law says she's guilty and that's what we must respect. Are we so presumptious as to think fair trials are only prevalent in the good 'ol USA. Sorry folks we stick up for independent countries in practically all other matters and we must in this too, regardless that we may think this to be an unfair verdict.
IMO, this was drug-induced. Asi es la vida.

Posted by: Duffman on December 5, 2009 08:08 AM
32. Duffman: Italian law says she's guilty and that's what we must respect.

False. We have no obligation of any sort to respect it.


are we so presumptious as to think fair trials are only prevalent in the good 'ol USA.

I saw no one imply any such thing. What people are saying is THIS trial was unfair.


Sorry folks we stick up for independent countries in practically all other matters and we must in this too

False.


I didn't follow the details closely, but I do know I never saw any evidence that she committed a crime of murder, or anything close to it (if there is such, I trust someone will point it out to me). None of us, including Obama, has any obligation to respect the verdict, if it is the wrong verdict, and we have every right to do anything we can to undermine it, perhaps short of invading Italy.

That doesn't mean we SHOULD. There's politics involved, and that may trump action. But there's no principle at work here that says we have any obligation to respect the verdict.

Posted by: pudge on December 5, 2009 08:17 AM
33. 26 years without hard evidence is hardly presumptious.

Posted by: Jill on December 5, 2009 08:17 AM
34. To 16 above. Sorry but I don't buy your hazy state explanation. She changed her story on questioning over a period of several days, after the murder had happened. She couldn't have been in a haze all the time.

If you don't remember something because of drugs/partying or whatever from a night, say "I don't remember" and stick to your story.

Posted by: Rakesh Sharma on December 5, 2009 08:47 AM
35. Amanda changed her story a few times in the 24 hours after the murder, as did Sollecito and Guede. The break in theory was a joke because no random street criminal would ever climb a 10 foot wall, break in through a window to kill someone, then leave the body under the bed for people to find. The "break in" was OBVIOUSLY a poor attempt by the 3 to cover up the scene, especially when you see that the shattered glass was ON TOP of all of things on the floor, rather than underneath them. All 3 obviously liked to party and smoke weed on occasion, even if they weren't great friends. Amanda may not have been the one to slash Kercher's throat, as none of her DNA was on Kercher or near her body, but that doesn't mean she wasn't an accomplice encouraging the 2 guys. Notice that the idea of Amanda hiring these 2 guys as "hitmen" never came up as an idea because that shows that Amanda would have planned this out in advance and had a good alibi, and it's obvious that this was a crime in the moment that started out as a rape that went awry. Therefore, the hitman theory simply doesn't work. The knife with Kercher's DNA on the blade was pretty damning, because the odds are basically zero that Kercher would have "borrowed" a knife from Sollecito one day and accidentally cut herself by touching the blade. While it is possible to cut yourself with a sharp blade, I would say there's a 1% chance of that and a 99% chance that was the knife she was killed with. I know the defense said that the wounds didn't match the knife's shape, but that's silly. The knife could have cut her at certain angles to create strange wound patterns. Then Sollecito could have easily scrubbed the knife like crazy to get "some" of the DNA off of there.

Posted by: Andy on December 5, 2009 09:14 AM
36. This girl is guilty as sin. You have got to be kidding me folks. She is as guilty as OJ. Face the facts. What a joke. She did it and you're in denial if you think she didn't.

Posted by: Jan on December 5, 2009 09:20 AM
37. This girl is guilty as sin. You have got to be kidding me folks. She is as guilty as OJ. Face the facts. What a joke. She did it and you're in denial if you think she didn't.

Posted by: Jan on December 5, 2009 09:21 AM
38. i've followed this case from the start. she had a fair trial, this happened in a foreign country not in ours. our system lets rapist out of jail, and everyone bitches about that. their system kept a killer in jail for 26 years.
she lied from the start, till the very end.
heres a good website to read for facts that our media NEVER showed :http://www.truejustice.org

hopefully Meredith Kercher family can move on and she can rest in peace.

Posted by: Sham Wow on December 5, 2009 09:29 AM
39. Amanda Knox is guilty of committing murder abroad. She gets what she deserves. It is obvious that she is also a liar and a drugged out sex freak. America is embarrassed by her, she never should have been allowed to enter Italy.

Posted by: Terry on December 5, 2009 09:30 AM
40. To add to my last comment about the DNA on the knife....Kercher had only been living there for 2 months , and supposedly had only known who Sollecito was for a few weeks. Think about this...when you have only met someone a few times in a 3 week span, how often would you "borrow" a knife from them to cut food with? And out of those times, how often would you be careless enough to cut yourself with that knife? That's right.....0.0000000001% of the time....that evidence alone, combined with them changing their stories is plenty to convict. All of the evidence in this case is really obvious...it's just rare to see a 21-year old, attractive, middle-class girl involved with some kind of grizzly murder, and that's why people just don't believe that she could have done it. Look at Scott Peterson....he looked like a handsome CEO during his court appearances...their appearance doesn't matter when you put all of this together. While no evidence/case is 100% perfect, it is about 98-99% perfect in this case....way more than a reasonable doubt.

Posted by: Andy on December 5, 2009 09:33 AM
41. The truth is, many young Americans travel abroad and act just like Amanda Knox did. The difference is, Amanda got caught. She must be made an example of. She is lucky to have been caught in Italy doing this. If this had happened in a Muslim country, she would have been beheaded on television.

Posted by: Ramsi on December 5, 2009 09:35 AM
42. correction: # 5 & 6 are the ones with identical email addresses.

Posted by: Michele on December 5, 2009 09:36 AM
43. Consider this:
1) No motive.
2) No confessions.
3) No testimony from the guy that has already been convicted of the murder that Knox was involved.
4) No witnesses.
5) No sequestering of the jury during what has been a highly-biased spectacle from the start. And 6) Clear and numerous factual accounts of evidence mishandling by authorities.

Maybe she had something to do with that girl's murder, maybe she didn't. All I know is that a system that can lock someone up that long on what amounts to emotional pandering is so broken that nobody's fate should be entrusted to it.

And to those on this comment list who ask questions like "What are the strongest known details of the case which support that she was innocent?" ... my response would be that the prosecution is supposed to prove you are guilty rather than the police picking somebody up and the court requiring defendant to prove their innocence. Two totally different things.

Posted by: Chris on December 5, 2009 09:54 AM
44. Consider this:
1) No motive.
2) No confessions.
3) No testimony from the guy that has already been convicted of the murder that Knox was involved.
4) No witnesses.
5) No sequestering of the jury during what has been a highly-biased spectacle from the start. And 6) Clear and numerous factual accounts of evidence mishandling by authorities.

Maybe she had something to do with that girl's murder, maybe she didn't. All I know is that a system that can lock someone up that long on what amounts to emotional pandering is so broken that nobody's fate should be entrusted to it.

And to those on this comment list who ask questions like "What are the strongest known details of the case which support that she was innocent?" ... my response would be that the prosecution is supposed to prove you are guilty rather than the police picking somebody up and the court requiring defendant to prove their innocence. Two totally different things.

Posted by: Chris on December 5, 2009 09:55 AM
45. Consider this:
1) No motive.
2) No confessions.
3) No testimony from the guy that has already been convicted of the murder that Knox was involved.
4) No witnesses.
5) No sequestering of the jury during what has been a highly-biased spectacle from the start. And 6) Clear and numerous factual accounts of evidence mishandling by authorities.

Maybe she had something to do with that girl's murder, maybe she didn't. All I know is that a system that can lock someone up that long on what amounts to emotional pandering is so broken that nobody's fate should be entrusted to it.

And to those on this comment list who ask questions like "What are the strongest known details of the case which support that she was innocent?" ... my response would be that the prosecution is supposed to prove you are guilty rather than the police picking somebody up and the court requiring defendant to prove their innocence. Two totally different things.

Posted by: Chris on December 5, 2009 09:56 AM
46. Andy, just curious. Where do you practice criminal law? Are you in private practice or do you work for a firm?

Posted by: MarkGriswold on December 5, 2009 10:14 AM
47. Americans need to break their illusion of moral superiority when it comes to issues of justice.
Juries anywhere in the world arrive at verdicts based on their own assessment of the evidence before them.

Posted by: Jamaicafest on December 5, 2009 11:52 AM
48. I am totally convinced Amanda is guilty of murdering Meredith.
I have been following closely this trial and I see overbearing amount of evidence against this woman. Her lies, hatred, detachment from reality, her borderline personality - I believe she has a bipolar disorder - made her sound so convincing. Typical for people afflicted by this mental condition. I believe she believes herself in what she says. Such is the truth for those who are split into parts.

Posted by: Craig on December 5, 2009 03:46 PM
49. I am totally convinced Amanda is guilty of murdering Meredith.
I have been following closely this trial and I see overbearing amount of evidence against this woman. Her lies, hatred, detachment from reality, her borderline personality - I believe she has a bipolar disorder - made her sound so convincing. Typical for people afflicted by this mental condition. I believe she believes herself in what she says. Such is the truth for those who are split into parts.
For her own sake I ope she breaks down in the prison and begining re-integrating and finding out who she really is. The is truly her chance for the real life.

Posted by: Craig on December 5, 2009 03:47 PM
50. There is no way anyone could clean up a bloody crime scene and only leave Guede's DNA- even CSI, And this case is just the opposite of OJ's- the jury completely ignored the scientific evidence and chose race over blood- in Amanda's case there is almost complete lack of any blood/DNA evidence to connect her to the scene, only emotional character assassination. In one a murderer got a way with murder, in the other an innocent girl was given an unfair trial as retribution for American "arrogance" I would think. Marcia

Posted by: marcia on December 5, 2009 05:00 PM
51. There is no way anyone could clean up a bloody crime scene and only leave Guede's DNA- even CSI, And this case is just the opposite of OJ's- the jury completely ignored the scientific evidence and chose race over blood- in Amanda's case there is almost complete lack of any blood/DNA evidence to connect her to the scene, only emotional character assassination. In one a murderer got a way with murder, in the other an innocent girl was given an unfair trial as retribution for American "arrogance" I would think. Marcia

Posted by: marcia on December 5, 2009 05:00 PM
52. There is no way anyone could clean up a bloody crime scene and only leave Guede's DNA- even CSI, And this case is just the opposite of OJ's- the jury completely ignored the scientific evidence and chose race over blood- in Amanda's case there is almost complete lack of any blood/DNA evidence to connect her to the scene, only emotional character assassination. In one a murderer got a way with murder, in the other an innocent girl was given an unfair trial as retribution for American "arrogance" I would think. Marcia

Posted by: marcia on December 5, 2009 05:00 PM
53. There is no way anyone could clean up a bloody crime scene and only leave Guede's DNA- even CSI, And this case is just the opposite of OJ's- the jury completely ignored the scientific evidence and chose race over blood- in Amanda's case there is almost complete lack of any blood/DNA evidence to connect her to the scene, only emotional character assassination. In one a murderer got a way with murder, in the other an innocent girl was given an unfair trial as retribution for American "arrogance" I would think. Marcia

Posted by: marcia on December 5, 2009 05:00 PM
54. Sorry about the multiple posting overzealous clicking I guess

Posted by: Marcia on December 5, 2009 05:05 PM
55. I concur with Marcia' multiple comments that said the same thing.

I heard Ann Bremner say that one option may be that Knox get extradited back to the US by some arrangement, for which she could not appeal and would have to serve most of the 26 year sentence. Not sure how that would work - couldn't we just let her free after a few years in an American prison ?

Posted by: KDS on December 5, 2009 06:52 PM
56. The on notable thing about b.s. is that it usually comes in giant heaps that appear to consist of many different things but really just consist of one thing, b.s..

Nobody gets so stoned they'd forget a brutal murder like she claimed. Total B.S..

So while the news blathers and tries to make it seem like all of America is behind her, just remember that stoners in Seattle know better and we're calling BULLSHIT. Amanda isn't going to make the guilty verdict of those 23 moronic CIA kidnappers go away, no matter how hard Cantwell and her precious Hillary try.

Have fun, the propaganda has begun!

Posted by: Midnight Toker on December 5, 2009 08:15 PM
57. Adios muchacha.

Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.

Posted by: threeoddnumbers on December 5, 2009 08:15 PM
58. I understand that in her closing arguments, Amanda Knox did not say once that she did not kill the victim. If that is true, Houston we have a problem...

I am also wondering why she would represent herself instead of her attorney in the closing arguments - their strategy was probably worse than the City of LA's prosecution against OJ...

Posted by: KDS on December 5, 2009 09:30 PM
59. Here's a question(s): What does Italy have to gain from continuing a prosecution that's allegedly so tainted there is no chance of getting a fair verdict? Wouldn't that ruin their relationship with the U.S, one of it's biggest allies? Is this their way of just sticking it to the U.S. because of their problems with W's administration? Is this ugly Italian nationalism (only to be outdone by ugly U.S. nationalism)? What's their motivation? Or are they just that incompetent? Or are her supporters blinded by their allegiance to her? - (in her parents and relatives' case it's understandable). Or is this a way to get publicity for the PR firm and other professionals helping the family? Just asking questions. Flame away.

Posted by: Tony on December 5, 2009 10:35 PM
60. Tony, if you do a little bit of digging, you'll find that the prosecutor (who is totally independent and doesn't answer to the government) is a grade A whack job and a petty tyrant. That's why. It's not some giant conspiracy, it's that the police bungled it (it happens everywhere), and the prosecutor is a tyrant that doesn't have to answer to anybody. He is currently under investigation for abuse of power.

That said, I'm not convinced one way or the other... even if the police bungled it and he's a nut, that doesn't mean she's innocent. I've just yet to see any real proof she's guilty.

Posted by: Mike H on December 6, 2009 04:05 PM
61. All I know of this case is what they've shown on the news, but I have served on a felony jury trial, and I do know that when you are there you get a lot more detail and testimony than the rest of the public ever sees. I don't know how anyone who wasn't at every minute of that trial could claim she was guilty or innocent, especially Maria Cantwell.

Posted by: Palouse on December 7, 2009 07:52 AM
62. I agree with Palouse regarding Sen. Cantwell. The senator appears foolish for even issuing a statement regarding this case. It makes her look like just another emotional person, in denial, who just can't believe Knox was involved. Well, sorry folks, there was a good chance that Knox was involved. To suggest that Italy prosecuted this case because of anti-Americanism sounds like a ridiculous conspiracy theory (after all, the co-defendent is Italian). This appears as part of an attempt by the Knox defense to blow this up into much larger issues in order to take the attention away from the victim and the strong possibility that Knox was involved.

Posted by: Danjak on December 7, 2009 08:47 AM
63. I agree with Palouse regarding Sen. Cantwell. The senator appears foolish for even issuing a statement regarding this case. It makes her look like just another emotional person, in denial, who just can't believe Knox was involved. Well, sorry folks, there was a good chance that Knox was involved. To suggest that Italy prosecuted this case because of anti-Americanism sounds like a ridiculous conspiracy theory (after all, the co-defendent is Italian). This appears as part of an attempt by the Knox defense to blow this up into much larger issues in order to take the attention away from the victim and the strong possibility that Knox was involved.

Posted by: Danjak on December 7, 2009 08:48 AM
64. Good point, Danjak. Cantwell's claim that "anti-Americanism" is the reason that Knox was found guilty is an embarrassment. It also functions to discredit Cantwell and her associates. (Her emotionalism suggests she'd fit right in with the Italian justice system.) I want to add here to that the defense (on the message boards) that it was the smoking of pot that fogged Knox and her boyfriend's memory strikes me - someone who also used to smoke pot at that age - as ludicrous. I can assure you that I wouldn't have a hard time remembering whether my girlfriend had slept at my house or not, as Raffaele claimed, once his (and Amanda's) initial story began being challenged. Are they guilty? Maybe not, but they are definitely liars

Posted by: Vncnt on December 7, 2009 11:38 AM
65. That's the point, Vncnt. There's a reasonable doubt, even in your mind, that she's not guilty. Therefore, even in Italy, she should have been released. Even if she did lie, doesn't mean she killed Kerchner.

Also, when you were smoking pot, did you ever stay up for 40 hours with someone yelling in your ear the whole time, trying to force their version of a story on you?

Posted by: MarkGriswold on December 7, 2009 12:04 PM
66. Several things of note: The jury in Italy does not have to arrive at a unanimous verdict.

Amanda Knox's testimony was contradictory, which impressed enough of the jury unfavorably to convict her, along with her DNA found in the blood samples - circumstancial evidence.

I don't believe she committed murder here, but there was a coverup of the murder that she was involved in.

Posted by: KDS on December 7, 2009 01:44 PM
67. Amanda Knox was railroaded and everyone that has studied this case can see that Knox is innocent.

The biggest factor in the verdict of the Amanda Knox case was that Amanda was tried in the press before her hearing ever started. The jurors did interviews with the press and two of them told the press before the hearing ever began that they believed that Amanda Knox was guilty. A couple of these jurors fell asleep during crucial testimony for the defense!

The Prosecutor spent most of the case trying to destroy Amanda's character - basically calling her capable of murder because she had a boyfriend and occasionally smoked pot. In the US her "sex life" would have not been allowed as evidence. In Italy, the Prosecutor made it the major part of the case from day one, making up lies as he went along. They say that he went for the "sex" angle because his physical evidence was non-existent.

The knife that supposedly had Amanda's DNA was not the murder weapon and it was not found at the scene of the crime. The actual knife left behind an impression in the sheets and it shows that a much smaller knife was used. Also, the wound in the victims neck shows a smaller knife was used. This particular knife could very likely have the DNA of both girls because both would have used it - for cooking! This knife would have been laughed at in a court in the US as a joke! Amanda's attorney was never allowed to bring in any experts to look at or challenge this DNA "evidence". The traces of DNA that were found in a sink, were found in a sink that was Amanda's sink, she shared this bathroom with her roommate that was murdered.

There is absolutely no physical evidence that Amanda Knox was in any way involved with this crime and expert after expert has said this.

Amanda was put in a room for 7 hours to wait to talk to the police. During the wait she got up and started doing stretches because she was stiff from sitting for hours. An Italian cop told her "you look like a gymnast". He asked if she could do a cartwheel and she said yes and then did a cartwheel. Amanda Knox went shopping for underwear because she was not allowed back into her apartment to retrieve any of her personal belongings. She was video taped by the press as she was going around buying/replacing the items she could not retrieve from her apartment. So what did the press say? Amanda Knox does cartwheels at the police station and goes shopping for sexy underwear!

When he was originally questioned, the man that was convicted for this crime told the police that Amanda and her boyfriend were not involved and not in the house.

What about the detention and questioning of American author Douglas Preston by these very same Italian police?

A Prosecutor who is under investigation for misconduct in a previous murder case is allowed to try Amanda Knox. Why? Perhaps the corruption and information on this Prosecutor who is under investigation may come out over the course of the next year. What are we doing to examine this man's record?

The appeals process can take two years and it is unlikely that the higher Italian court will overturn the lower court. The US Government may be the only hope Amanda Knox has.

Do you understand that what happened to Amanda Knox could happen to any American kid traveling or studying abroad?

I do not know Amanda Knox, but I do feel it is our duty to stop this injustice. This young girl is innocent and what has happened to her is a slap in the face to every citizen of the United States.

At the very least, Amanda Knox did not receive a fair trail and any thinking person knows this.

Will Amanda Knox be helped or is it ok that her life and her families life was destroyed by a corrupt Italian judicial system?


Posted by: Marie Casey on December 9, 2009 01:24 AM
68. Amanda Knox was railroaded and everyone that has studied this case can see that Knox is innocent.

The biggest factor in the verdict of the Amanda Knox case was that Amanda was tried in the press before her hearing ever started. The jurors did interviews with the press and two of them told the press before the hearing ever began that they believed that Amanda Knox was guilty. A couple of these jurors fell asleep during crucial testimony for the defense!

The Prosecutor spent most of the case trying to destroy Amanda's character - basically calling her capable of murder because she had a boyfriend and occasionally smoked pot. In the US her "sex life" would have not been allowed as evidence. In Italy, the Prosecutor made it the major part of the case from day one, making up lies as he went along. They say that he went for the "sex" angle because his physical evidence was non-existent.

The knife that supposedly had Amanda's DNA was not the murder weapon and it was not found at the scene of the crime. The actual knife left behind an impression in the sheets and it shows that a much smaller knife was used. Also, the wound in the victims neck shows a smaller knife was used. This particular knife could very likely have the DNA of both girls because both would have used it - for cooking! This knife would have been laughed at in a court in the US as a joke! Amanda's attorney was never allowed to bring in any experts to look at or challenge this DNA "evidence". The traces of DNA that were found in a sink, were found in a sink that was Amanda's sink, she shared this bathroom with her roommate that was murdered.

There is absolutely no physical evidence that Amanda Knox was in any way involved with this crime and expert after expert has said this.

Amanda was put in a room for 7 hours to wait to talk to the police. During the wait she got up and started doing stretches because she was stiff from sitting for hours. An Italian cop told her "you look like a gymnast". He asked if she could do a cartwheel and she said yes and then did a cartwheel. Amanda Knox went shopping for underwear because she was not allowed back into her apartment to retrieve any of her personal belongings. She was video taped by the press as she was going around buying/replacing the items she could not retrieve from her apartment. So what did the press say? Amanda Knox does cartwheels at the police station and goes shopping for sexy underwear!

When he was originally questioned, the man that was convicted for this crime told the police that Amanda and her boyfriend were not involved and not in the house.

What about the detention and questioning of American author Douglas Preston by these very same Italian police?

A Prosecutor who is under investigation for misconduct in a previous murder case is allowed to try Amanda Knox. Why? Perhaps the corruption and information on this Prosecutor who is under investigation may come out over the course of the next year. What are we doing to examine this man's record?

The appeals process can take two years and it is unlikely that the higher Italian court will overturn the lower court. The US Government may be the only hope Amanda Knox has.

Do you understand that what happened to Amanda Knox could happen to any American kid traveling or studying abroad?

I do not know Amanda Knox, but I do feel it is our duty to stop this injustice. This young girl is innocent and what has happened to her is a slap in the face to every citizen of the United States.

At the very least, Amanda Knox did not receive a fair trail and any thinking person knows this.

Will Amanda Knox be helped or is it ok that her life and her families life was destroyed by a corrupt Italian judicial system?


Posted by: Marie Casey on December 9, 2009 01:24 AM
69. I'm sure someone above must have mentioned it here, but in case they haven't:

Read "The Monster of Florence." It was written a few years before the Amanda Knox case about the same prosecution team.

Amazing read that really exposes some cultural issues that affect their legal system.

Posted by: johnny on December 9, 2009 09:54 AM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?