Today's first ruling in Amanda Knox's fourth trial for murder doesn't bode well for a fair trial.

[pnwmom]

In short, in a retrial for murder in which a young woman was stabbed and sexually assaulted, yet another judge has ruled against a very simple test: he refused to order a DNA test on the semen found on the pillow under the victim's body.

The longer version . . .

After being convicted in a first trial, and having that conviction tossed by an appeals court, and having that result tossed by the High Court, Amanda Knox's lawyers are back in a new Italian appeals court trying to prove her innocence.

One of the arguments made by the High Court in their written opinion was that they had already ruled in the case of Rudy Guede, who was also convicted in the murder in a separate trial, that he must have had help killing the petite woman. Therefore, even though Amanda hadn't been a part of that case, and couldn't offer any evidence in it or even have her lawyers question Guede, the High Court says the appeals court should use their ruling -- that Guede had unspecified helpers -- as evidence against her. (Guede was a friend of the downstairs tenants' and had a history of carrying a knife while burglarizing. He wasn't a friend of either Amanda or Raffaele, according to all the testimony.)

Guede's DNA was found both inside and outside the victim's body and Amanda's wasn't anywhere in the room. However, there was a semen stain left on the pillow under the victim's body, which was never tested. Up till now, the prosecution never saw any reason to test this stain for DNA. The defense recently requested the new judge to order a test of the sperm for DNA. Maybe it belonged to Guede or maybe it belonged to somebody else -- whose identity, if known, might point to another possible murderer. Other than Amanda or Raffaele.

The judge has just ruled against testing that semen sample. In other words, the semen sample under the murder victim's body will not be tested.

If they thought it might belong to Amanda's boyfriend Raffaele, don't you think the prosecution would be eager to have it tested? If they were interested in justice at all, wouldn't they want to have it tested?

This already appears to be another rigged trial, like the first one.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

1. No wonder Italy's such a fucking joke

And I say that as one who's one quarter Italian.

[pnwmom]

3. It's the same country that convicted half a dozen PHD geologists of manslaughter

because they said, after a series of small tremors in an earthquake zone, that that didn't mean that a large earthquake was about to follow.

[JustAnotherGen]

12. And this is the country

That let Zimmerman go free. . . I guess as a brown person not just in America but in the world - a brown woman - I know we have less value. I can't help but relate to the non fair skinned one - the one that screamed. The one that if the roles were reversed - would have been completely ignored by the American media.


pnw - I respect the hell out of you - but considering what a horrific and terrify criminal justice system we have in the US - we ought not be throwing stones at other countries. We are the standard bearers of justice being anything BUT blind - at least color blind.

[pnwmom]

18. Human Rights Watch has Italy near the bottom in its rankings

of justice systems in Europe.

As bad as we are, they're markedly worse.

But I would never try to justify the Zimmerman case. That was a travesty in its own way.

[JustAnotherGen]

22. I still prefer

There to here though. Sorry - it will be much better for me there as an elderly person than we will be in America.

[Boudica the Lyoness]

114. Congratulations, you are the first person

ever to refer to the murder victim as a "brown woman". Every one else called her Meredith Kercher or 'a British woman'.

You seem to have no idea that in the UK and Europe, the majority of the people and the Italian court were firmly on the side of the woman you only saw as "brown".

Please stop race baiting. It is hurting those of us that just want to go through life as being part of the human race and not a color.

[msanthrope]

2. Did Amanda Knox ever pay Diya Lumumba the damages she owes him? On edit--

apparently she didn't, and Lumumba's attorney is in the courtroom, tearing it up.

[pnwmom]

5. I have no idea whether she paid the damages she owed him because

she broke down in the middle of the night after several days of interrogations, with no attorney present, and finally complied with the police demand that she "imagine" how Patrick could have murdered Meredith; and then wrote a new statement a few hours later saying that she couldn't remember anything happening like that and didn't think it was true.

[msanthrope]

7. Well, she caused an innocent man to go to jail with her signed statement, an innocent

man who has been awarded damages for her defamation.

Didn't she get a huge book advance? Why hasn't she paid him? Carlo Pacelli is doing an excellent job. Good for him.

[Comrade Grumpy]

9. Living up to your screen name once again.

The young woman gets coerced into a false statement as part of a judicial process that has been a travesty of justice, is now on trial once again on these sham charges, and off you go with your side issue. What's your point?

[msanthrope]

16. Ahem--getting the boss who fired you arrested for killing your roommate isn't a

side issue. Particularly to minority-business owner Diya Lumumba, who lost his restaurant, spent two weeks in jail, and who is still trying to collect his damage award.

[Demo_Chris]

79. Yeah, but Amanda is pretty so it's all okay. Pretty sure that's how that works. nt

[Comrade Grumpy]

11. What is Lumumba's attorney doing? Why is he even there?

I admit I don't understand the intricacies of the Italian justice system.

[msanthrope]

13. Lumumba is a victim of Knox. He's there, representing his client's interests, and providing

circumstantial evidence of guilt.

[pnwmom]

14. He's there because Lumumba has a better chance of getting more money

in his civil trial against her if the state proves her guilty in the criminal trial.

That's also why the murder victim's parents' lawyer is there. They're suing Amanda and Raffaele for millions of dollars, so they have a monetary interest in the outcome. (The real killer has no money so no one's suing him.)

[msanthrope]

17. He already has his damage award. As for the Kerchers, I don't blame them for suing all three

murderers.

[pnwmom]

19. The Kerchers and anyone else who thinks Amanda and Raffaele were involved are sadly deluded.

I can understand why they are. But not any other intelligent person who carefully followed the trials.

[msanthrope]

27. Having read the Massei and Micheli reports, and being a criminal defense attorney, I will tell you

that the Kerchners are not only not deluded, but that Raffele is going to have a change of heart when Crini is done.

[pnwmom]

29. But you didn't read the Hellman report. How telling.

You must be one of those rare criminal defense attorneys who don't think police have to take measures against contamination when collecting DNA samples.

Right.

[msanthrope]

32. Oh--I read Hellmann-Zanetti. Helmann's denial of DNA testing is perplexing, and frankly, his

description of the window evidence outside of Filomena's room simply doesn't comport with the evidence.

Hellmann is currently retired, and his handling of the appeal indicates that was a good call.--given that within two days of the verdict, he was saying Knox could have done it, after all.

The judge who presided at the trial of Amanda Knox and her former Italian boyfriend, Raffaele Sollecito, has reportedly said they may be guilty after all.

Speaking just two days after he and his fellow judges handed down a full acquittal on appeal, Judge Claudio Pratillo Hellmann, said the court's verdict "is the result of the truth that was created in the proceedings. But the real truth may be different. They may be responsible, but the evidence is not there."

The 69 year-old judge was speaking to the Corriere della Sera newspaper in the latest of several interviews he has given to media organisations since reading out the verdict on Monday night. On Wednesday, he had already begun to muddy the waters, telling another interviewer: "This will remain an unsolved truth. No one can say how things went."

Hellmann's remarks were all the more unexpected because he and the other judges could have reached a less clear-cut acquittal. Italian courts have ruling options in which the appellants are acquitted for lack of evidence – a verdict similar to "not proven" in Scottish law.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/oct/06/amanda-knox-judge-responsible

[pnwmom]

34. You didn't read it carefully then. He didn't deny DNA testing.

He agreed with the University professors that the collection procedures were not properly followed and that contamination was likely.

And his understanding of the physics of the broken glass made perfect sense -- unlike the bizarre world of the prosecutors, where a flying rock pushes glass in the opposite direction.

[msanthrope]

36. Yes--he did. I am giving you an American language link, since I presume you do not read Italian....

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/09/07/jury-rejects-dna-request-in-amanda-knox-trial/

Hellman denied the prosecution's request for DNA testing.....why would he do that????

[pnwmom]

37. Why would he do that? Because that testing would have been pointless

because the professors had already proven that contamination of the samples was extremely likely due to the complete failure to follow standard collection procedures.

If you really are a "criminal defense attorney" I feel sorry for your clients.

[msanthrope]

46. Wait a second--you want DNA testing of some stain on a pillow downthread, but here, you don't

want DNA testing of the proposed murder weapon???

Look, as a criminal defense attorney, I will only suggest consistency on your claims for DNA testing. Otherwise, it muddies the waters.

[pnwmom]

50. The pillow was found underneath the sexually assaulted woman's body.

The proposed "murder weapon," which was randomly taken from Raffaele's kitchen, was much too large to be the weapon that made the cuts in Meredith's body, and it didn't match the knife outlined in blood on Meredith's sheet.

Even so, Amanda's attorneys had asked the earlier courts to take the knife apart and check for blood inside and the judges refused. When the prosecution asked for more testing on the knife at the end of the trial, THAT was just to delay everything and muddy the waters.

[msanthrope]

55. Wait a second--she wants the stains on a pillow tested....but not the murder weapon? I say 'stains'

because they have not been found to be anything--semen or otherwise.

[pnwmom]

57. She's NOT objecting to having the kitchen knife tested. She wanted it tested even more

thoroughly.

But it couldn't have been the murder weapon because it was too big.

[msanthrope]

71. Excellent. Then when Kercher's DNA is found on it, I suspect she won't be surprised. nt

[pnwmom]

72. I wouldn't be surprised at all because it was transported in an unsanitary box to the police station

where it stayed till it was sent to the lab, which also didn't take normal precautions against contamination.

You must be the worst criminal defense attorney in the country. I was going to say world, but that can't be because they're probably even worse in Italy.

[msanthrope]

74. Well, the defense can certainly try that argument. I mean, OJ managed to explain away the bloody

Bronco, socks, and gloves during the criminal trial using the 'contamination' argument.

Of course, that argument didn't work in the civil trial, when a much smarter jury realized that it was bullshit.

If Knox has a reasonable explanation as to how her and the murder victim's DNA ended up on a knife in her boyfriend's apartment, I'd love to read it.

[pnwmom]

76. A reasonable explanation for how Knox's DNA ended up on the knife handle in the kitchen

where she cooked? Let's see: maybe she held the knife while she cut bread with the knife. The bread whose particles were identified on the knife by the court-appointed expert witnesses!


A reasonable explanation for how a microscopic bit of POSSIBLY Meredith's DNA ended up on the knife (too small to yield a full DNA or to repeat the test) -- contamination, because the police ignored normal collection procedures, and the lab didn't observe normal precautions either.

Here's a question, Mr. Defense Attorney: how is it possible that this so-called murder weapon had no BLOOD on it -- only a tiny speck of DNA. How could all the blood from the bloody murder be washed off and leave a speck only of DNA?

And how could the knife be the murder weapon when it didn't match either the wounds or the imprint of a knife on the sheet?

[msanthrope]

80. First of all, like you, my username clearly indicates my gender. Second of all, since the

knife was found in Sollecito's kitchen, perhaps you can explain how Kercher's DNA is on it?

Let's review. The purported murder weapon is found in the boyfriend's kitchen. It has Knox's and Kercher's DNA on it, Knox's on the handle, Kercher's on the tip. And it's looking like further testing will prove that it is, indeed, Kercher's DNA. Can you have DNA without a positive blood sign??

Yes--it's really simple science. Luminol and other substances that test for 'blood' react to hemoglobin. Hemoglobin is in red blood cells. It is not in white. So when you are testing for blood stains, you are really testing for red blood cells and the hemoglobin inside them.

White blood cells contain DNA. The red do not.

So it is possible that that knife was cleaned, leaving only white blood cells (that are detectable***.) And you only need 10 cells to amplify and test.

You are talking to a defense attorney who knows that just because there is no positive blood sign, there is still possibly DNA. So, if you are going to make a contamination argument, then you have to explain how the lab, using an 'unsanitary box' managed to only contaminate with white blood cells on the tip of the knife.

The lack of 'blood' on the knife indicates a washed knife that still had enough DNA on it. A contaminated knife would have had red blood cells.

***I suspect this is why the prosecution wants to take the knife apart---where the handle and blade meet, there might be other organic evidence.

FYI--If I had a nickel for every time I had a DUer claim I wasn't an attorney because I told them something they didn't want to hear, I'd be rich.

[pnwmom]

81. It's not the prosecution that wanted the knife taken apart -- it was the DEFENSE.

And a contaminated knife wouldn't have had to have red blood cells on it -- not if it was contamination from Meredith's skin cells, acquired in the lab.

Sorry about getting your gender wrong. Maybe you've never heard of Middle Finger Mom, but he's not a female, despite the name.

[msanthrope]

82. Nencini granted the prosecution request for testing on the knife---and it seems that the request for

taking apart the knife comes from Sollecito's attorney, not Knox's. That's interesting.

Your theory of contamination of skin cells from the lab really makes no sense, though. Explain how that happened and how the skin cells were transferred to the tip of the knife, only. Also explain how you concluded these were skin cells.

[pnwmom]

83. It isn't the obligation of the defense to prove how and when contamination occurred,

as you would know if you were an actual defense attorney.

It is the obligation of the prosecutor to prove that they followed correct methods to avoid contamination.

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/TheKnife.html


What was left of the sample from the blade was tested for DNA.. The results were negative.There was no DNA on the blade. This is when all guidelines for testing DNA were thrown out the window. Stefanoni used a very new, unproven technique called low copy number DNA profiling.

Patrizia Stefanoni had neither the proper equipment nor the proper laboratory to perform low copy number DNA profiling, but she did it anyway. There are only a few such laboratories in the world. Her own lab was not even certified to perform ordinary DNA profiling at the time these tests were performed. Stefanoni performed tests that do not conform to any standard, anywhere.

Even with the low copy number method, Stefanoni was still not getting the desired result. The tests kept coming back "too low." She took even more drastic measures. The machine parameters were over-ridden. The machine parameters were pushed far past the level of reliability finally producing the result she needed. Keep in mind, the test was done in a lab using large amounts of Meredith's DNA. No negative controls were used. The alleged match to Meredith’s DNA is completely unreliable because the result was so infinitesimally small (less than 100 picograms, with a picogram being a trillionth of a gram, or 0.000000000001 gram). The procedures used to get the result Stefanoni needed were deeply flawed. The DNA found on the knife came from the lab. The knife had no DNA from Meredith Kercher on the blade when it arrived for testing. The DNA sample was so small that only one test could be performed. No additional testing will ever be available.

Keep in mind,

No blood was on the blade.

No DNA was on the blade.

The knife doesn't match most of the wounds on Meredith.

The knife doesn't match the bloody imprint left on the bed.

SNIP

Mark C. Waterbury, Ph.D, summed up the lack of control testing perfectly:

"Perhaps even more important for the knife DNA, no control experiments were run to follow the handling of the item from the field through to the laboratory. That is, to see if other, random objects retrieved from the same drawer and handled in the same, unprofessional way, might also appear to have DNA on them. It would be interesting to hear the prosecution spinning a sinister implication out of DNA found on a can opener. Perhaps one can use canned peas for satanic rituals. Would Meredith's DNA be found on a spoon from the same drawer? How about Filomena's? Would the spoon then be cast as the murder weapon, whether it matches any wounds or not?
All this is preposterous of course. But think about it. We have no way of knowing what the supposed knife DNA means, or where it came from, because no comparison tests of any kind were performed."

Read more of Mark's analysis here: www.sciencespheres.com.

[msanthrope]

84. Um, yeah--it is in Italy. And here, in America, if one is going to assert contamination,

one had better have some evidence to show to a jury, because hoping that you get a jury as stupid as OJ's first one isn't a viable trial plan. I mean, you can assert 'contamination' all you want, but very few juries are going to believe you without some evidence that malfeasance occurred. And multiple items of evidence need a better explanation than 'contamination.' Here, you have a knife, the bathmat, the bra clasp, the staging outside the window, the changing stories of the defendants, and other evidence.

I mean, you can cross a specific witness on specific practices, and allege all sorts of stuff, but it's silly to try to pull a Henry Lee without something to back it up.

[pnwmom]

86. Any American jury would be impressed by the video showing police wearing

visibly dirty gloves and passing the bra clasp between each other, and then placing it back on the floor for a photo op.

Any American jury would be impressed by expert testimony showing that there was enough contamination on the bra clasp to yield the DNA of several different unidentified males -- all of which had to have come from contamination. Any American jury would be impressed by the expert testimony saying there was so much DNA on the bra clasp that he could have found a match to the judge's DNA.

The bath mat had nothing on it but a smear. There was no staging outside the window. And after that confused night when the police browbeat Amanda into her "vision" about Patrick, her story never changed.

You're been reading too much Harry Rag. Maybe that's why you never learned that the speck they thought was Meredith's DNA turned out to be a speck of starch.

[msanthrope]

87. If the evidence reveals what you say it does, then I have no doubt the judge will be just.

But I think you are a bit ahead of yourself when you confuse defense expert speculation with scientific fact. Further, I don't think this conviction is going to rest on the DNA evidence. I think Crini is taking a very different route, since he has a wealth of evidence in the books that Knox and Sollecito have written.

[pnwmom]

88. Defense expert testimony is part of the evidence, as any criminal defense attorney would know.

I fully expect Amanda and Raffaele to lose because the corruption of the Italian justice system appears to be overwhelming. The judge has already ruled that instead of new independent experts examining the so-called speck of DNA said to be on the knife, he'll have the police do it. Right. That's fair.

[msanthrope]

93. Um, no. First, you are conflating 'testimony' with 'evidence.' Second, you are

conflating a lay witness with an expert witness. Finally, you forgetting that the trier of fact ultimately establishes what facts are accepted, and what weight is given to the evidence presented.

In America, a defense expert's opinion isn't evidence until it reaches a certain threshold. Check out Rule 702, and Daubert and Frye.

Italy, however, uses a civil system, and the threshold for a scientific witness is much lower. Ironically, Knox is going to have an easier time appealing a negative DNA finding in Italy than here.

[pnwmom]

95. The system in Italy is what we're talking about, so Rule 702 doesn't apply.

The independent expert witnesses were appointed by the Hellman Court, which accepted their testimony as evidence. But the slut-shaming members of the High Court, who can't wait to hear a trial about a sex-game-gone-wrong are passing new tests to the prosecutor's lab. They're clearly not interested in accurate results.

[msanthrope]

96. Which is why I noted that there's a difference between the two countries. We will see what gets

accepted this go-round.

But I think Crini is smart enough to make sure this case doesn't rest on the DNA.

[pnwmom]

98. The result is pre-ordained. The High Court has already basically ordered the appeals

court to find her guilty. This trial will be a sick joke. The witch hunters have won.

[msanthrope]

99. You know--you keep citing the Hellmann report. So I have a question for you--Hellmann

found her guilty on the felony count of implicating Patrick Lamumba. Was he wrong?

[pnwmom]

101. Ethically, he was wrong. Without the tape that was supposed to have been recorded

of the interrogation, they shouldn't have held her responsible for that statement, which she then almost immediately withdrew. It wasn't her fault that the police used her first statement as an excuse to arrest Lumumba.

Legally, I have no idea. Maybe his ruling was correct -- in that twisted context.

[msanthrope]

103. So Hellmann's reliance on the fact that Knox implicated Patrick when she was a mere witness was

incorrect? If I remember correctly, didn't Hellmann note that the original implication of Lamumba happened when she was a witness?

[pnwmom]

107. She wasn't a mere witness. The police don't hit witnesses in the head.

They were obviously treating her as a suspect, though she didn't realize that. Actually, she asked them if she should have a lawyer and they told her that would just make it harder for her.

[msanthrope]

108. I think you are mistaken. The Hellmann report indicates that during her initial questioning,

she was a witness. The change in circumstance seems to have come when her co-conspirator, Sollecito, and her were conflicted on their alibis, and when confronted by that, she implicated Patrick.

In looking at her varying explanations, I am struck at how it seems that she is one who brought up Patrick, unprompted by police. I think Hellmann saw that, too.

http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Amanda_Knox%27s_Confession#Transcript_of_Amanda_Knox.27s_Handwritten_Statement_to_Police_on_the_Evening_of_November_6.2C_the_Day_She_Was_Arrested:%7C

[pnwmom]

110. That link proves nothing. The police brought up Patrick's name because they found him in the texts.

Amanda says that they then pushed her to name him as the murderer, and to imagine what could have happened. And the police can't prove otherwise, because they cleverly "lost" the video of the interrogation that John Follain says they made.

[msanthrope]

111. I don't believe a convicted liar. And even your Judge Hellmann doesn't, either. nt

[pnwmom]

112. I don't care about any of the smoke and mirrors the prosecution put forward.

Last edited Tue Oct 1, 2013, 10:51 AM - Edit history (1)

The legal standard in Italy is beyond a reasonable doubt, as it is in the U.S.

The bottom line is that the small, bloody murder room yielded dozens of pieces of physical evidence related to the burglar, Rudy Guede, whose DNA was found inside and outside Meredith's body, and in her purse.

The same room contained not a single piece of physical evidence connected with Amanda. It isn't physically possible -- except in a magical world -- for Amanda and Raffaele to have selectively cleaned the room of their invisible fingerprints and DNA, leaving only Guede's. This IN AND OF ITSELF leaves enough reasonable doubt to fly a 747 through. All of the other so-called evidence, including the statements of non-guilt that Amanda made, are just smoke and mirrors.

[Bonx]

51. Unless I missed something, there was only one murderer.

Guede.

[pnwmom]

60. He's the only one who left evidence all over the murder room

and inside the victim's body. And he accepted a conviction in a fast-track trial in exchange for a sentence that will get him out in about a year.

[pnwmom]

24. No, she didn't. The police already knew he was innocent when they put him in jail,

and they kept him there for weeks after she wrote the statement saying that her memory of the night -- the one the police had forced her to imagine-- couldn't be relied on.

How do we know they knew he was innocent? Because in the three weeks they had him in jail, pretending he was a defendant, they never once bothered to search his house for evidence. And they didn't even release him after they knew that Rudy Guede's DNA had been found in the toilet. They only released him when another witness came forward and gave him a rock solid alibi.

[msanthrope]

28. She wrote two statements indicating his guilt. Her appeal of her felony conviction for implicating

him was not overturned.

[pnwmom]

30. She said that she could "imagine" being in the kitchen with her hands over her ears

while he killed Meredith in the other room.

And then she wrote a second statement saying that she didn't believe that was true.

Neither of the statements were admissible in her criminal trial -- according to a High Court ruling -- because she had no attorney present. (I would think that you, as a "criminal defense attorney," might have a little issue with that.)

However, the jury was allowed to read these statements as part of her civil trial, which ran concurrently.

[msanthrope]

48. She could imagine the boss who fired her killing her roommate? That's some imagination. No wonder

she got convicted for defamation.

[pnwmom]

52. She was ordered by the policewoman who was striking her to do so.

But they conveniently lost the tape that would show this. (Follain, the guilter's favorite go-to author, says that they did have a tape but it was lost.)

[msanthrope]

54. Sure she was. She was ordered by the police to accuse the boss who fired her the week before.

Of course....and then she imagines the boss--who fired her the week before, and who had never been in her home, killing Meredith in the other room.

Sure. That's believable.

[pnwmom]

56. He didn't fire her. She was still working for him the day of the murder,

and that's why she texted him, after he told her he didn't need her that night: "see you later. goodnight."

The police tried to make Amanda accuse him. They thought they needed a black suspect because of the black fiber they found, and he was convenient -- until he wasn't.

[msanthrope]

70. Yes--he did. He fired her from the bar on October 30th, and she kept coming around, hoping to

get him to change his mind. She kept texting him--he didn't let her back behind the bar.

What you are suggesting simply doesn't make sense....how did the police decide to go after him?

[pnwmom]

73. No, he didn't. That was a lie he made up to help the police,

once he decided he had a better chance getting some money out of the deal if he attacked Amanda.

How did the police decide to go after him? The police needed a black suspect, they thought, because of the black fiber in Meredith's hand. They thought the murder was committed by a roommate, and Amanda was the only one in town. Plus, she had a black boss -- with the right hair -- and she had told that boss "see you later." So, according to the police, "see you later" really meant "see you later to help me commit murder."

And then they found Guede's poop in the toilet, with his DNA, and Lumumba's alibi came forward, so they had to swap Guede for Lumumba in the picture -- even though Guede spoke no English, Amanda barely spoke Italian, and the two men had never even met each other. But all of a sudden the three of them decided to have a sex orgy together and murder Meredith.

Didn't they teach any common sense at that special law school you went to?

[msanthrope]

78. Okay--so the police decide, after finding a black wool fiber, that the assailant must have been a

black man. So they decide that it must be Amanda Knox's boss. And, presumably, Amanda, because they think the texts are conspiratorial.

So they release Amanda. And arrest the black boss.


Yeah....that scenario doesn't make a lot of sense. Now, it's a scenario I'd definitely try to sell if Knox was my client, though---because it minimizes Knox's involvement in the arrest of her boss.

[pnwmom]

33. No, she didn't. The police forced her into making that statement, for reasons

only they know. If they actually thought he was guilty, they would have searched his house during the three weeks they had him in jail, in order to collect evidence.

They just wanted a black guy in jail then for some reason -- maybe because they already knew which black guy had done the murder, and that guy was well connected.

[msanthrope]

44. right. They forced her into naming the boss that fired her. nt

[pnwmom]

47. He didn't fire her. And they conveniently lost the recording of their interrogation

of her, so she can't prove how they forced her. But her second statement still exists, in which she told them that her first statement could not be relied on.

[msanthrope]

53. She was fired on October 30th, according to her boss. As she is a convicted liar, I tend to believe

the innocent guy.

[pnwmom]

58. He was lying then, which is obvious from their texts about him not needing her that night,

and her saying "see you later."

[msanthrope]

69. No--he fired her from the bar, and she continued to hang out there, hoping he would change his mind

and let her work behind the bar again.

He shouldn't have been so nice to her. He should have cut off contact completely.

[Sheldon Cooper]

113. She's a convicted liar? Convicted by who - the Italian courts?

That's simply laughable. Anything that comes out of their court system ia an utter joke.

[pnwmom]

21. Can he explain why the sperm on the pillow underneath Meredith's body shouldn't be tested for DNA?

Can you?

[msanthrope]

42. Lumumba's attorney? It would be easier if you used names, not pronouns. nt

[pnwmom]

45. Yes, Lumumba's attorney, since he's inserting himself in the continuing case. n/t

[msanthrope]

49. Lumumba's attorney didn't speak as to the DNA testing. The defense and Crini did. nt

[pnwmom]

59. You're right. Lumumba is just there because he's hoping for a bigger payoff.

That's why he's willing to lie about having fired Amanda, when she was working for him right up to and including the day of the murder. And that's why he changed his original story about police brutality, since his first story would confirm what Amanda had to say.

$$$$$

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=11132669

In its first move, the Florence court rejected a motion by Knox's lawyers to exclude Lumumba from the new appeals trial as a civil participant, a status that allows him to seek further damages. His lawyer says Lumumba is owed more than 103,000 euros in legal fees.

[msanthrope]

68. Why shouldn't a crime victim seek redress from the criminal? nt

[pnwmom]

92. He alleged police brutality. He should be suing the police.

He knows more than anyone how they broke Amanda down.

[msanthrope]

94. Or, maybe, since he knows Amanda personally, he knows precisely where the blame should lie

for his false arrest.

Neither you not I know Amanda Knox personally. He does. Do you think he might have more insight on her than you?

[pnwmom]

97. How do you know whether I know her personally?

I don't actually, but one of my adult children does. And I know many others in our community, including her teachers and employers, who do. She is nothing like the caricature portrayed in the Italian and British tabloids. It is disgusting to see so much hate out there directed at someone who's only crime was against herself, in naively thinking she could "help" the police.

[msanthrope]

100. You know--you keep citing the Hellmann report. So I have a question for you--Hellmann

found her guilty for implicating Patrick Lamumba. So why is it you think he is wrong for suing her? He is her victim....and the judge's report you like agrees with that.

She's not naïve. She just thought she was smarter than the cops.

[leftyohiolib]

4. this trial isnt about justice. italy botched the case and now that amanda is gone theyll retry

her, find her guilty (because of course WE did nothing wrong) but make no serious attempt at extradition.

[pnwmom]

6. I feel sorry for Raffaele, who spent four years in prison and is still at risk for a life sentence

if he remains unwilling to falsely testify against her.

[JustAnotherGen]

8. Except

It amounts to nothing. At least being an actual Tax Payer there - I now feel like I have the right to say -

This is all just 'for show' and to keep up their tourism from the British Isles. Nothing is going to come out of this except to keep up that cash cow.

If anything - it's a waste of tax payer dollars.



ETA: The victim's name was Meredith Kercher. I've always wonder - did she scream for help? And if she did - how she felt when no one came. When no one heard her screams.

[pnwmom]

10. It's not a show trial for the defendants -- especially Sollecito. n/t

[JustAnotherGen]

15. But it's good for business

They need that money from the Brits. Most Americans don't even have a passport - so they aren't going there or anywhere else outside of the US on a trip.

This seriously hurt tourism from Great Britain. It hurt the bottom line for one of the PIGS.

At the end of the day - do you REALLY believe you can change the criminal justice system in Italy?

I don't think you can. I think you can write a million letters and no one there is paying attention.

As long as Knox goes free - be at peace. NOTHING is going to happen to her. I wouldn't be surprised if she is found NOT guilty again.

It's all just for show. Go around Italy on a Saturday afternoon to the open air markets. . . See how pulled together everyone is? It's because it's all just for show.

[pnwmom]

20. Actually, there are many American students in Perugia.

My sister was one of them, a long time ago.

[JustAnotherGen]

25. Students

And not NEARLY as many as there are from the EU.

But very few Americans go to Hotel 47 in Rome. My husband and I were the only people there that resided in the US. It's a 5 star top tier boutique hotel known for it's English Speaking. Had an interesting disco with the hotel manager (we have the first rare same name ) - who is from the US. We were the first Americans to come through in six months.

I hate to break it to you - but we aren't 'all that' anymore. Im sorry - but it's true.

[pnwmom]

26. We aren't very popular there, that's for sure. And that is why Amanda

was such a convenient scapegoat.

[Bluenorthwest]

85. Each year about 35 million Americans travel abroad, excluding Mexico and Canada, overseas

The entire population of the UK is 60 million. Just saying. Italy gets between 2 and 3 million US visitors a year.

[snooper2]

23. Why are there even any lawyers there for her?

Can't they just say go fly a kite?

It's not like she is going back to Italy any time soon LOL

[Donald Ian Rankin]

31. Here's one possible reason

http://www.mcnabbassociates.com/Italy%20International%20Extradition%20Treaty%20with%20the%20United%20States.pdf

[snooper2]

35. Looks like article 6 and article 7 would prevent her extradition

She was already tried and set free right-

Of course I'm no lawyer



Article 6
provides that extradition shall be denied when the person sought has been
in jeopardy in the requested State for the same offense.

Article 7 states a discretionary ground for refusal of extradition. It
provides that extradition may be refused when the person sought is being
proceeded against by the requested State for the same act.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

38. I think jeopardy refers to acquittal, not a vacated conviction.

And I don't believe she's being tried for murder in the USA.

So no, I don't think either of those applies.

[pnwmom]

40. No one really knows whether this would be considered double jeopardy or not,

by US standards.

It would not be by Italian standards, but legal authorities here have different opinions on the subject.

[pnwmom]

39. Meredith's parents have sued her for millions of dollars

which they cannot collect until she is finally found guilty.

Also, she won't be able to travel anywhere that has an extradition agreement with Italy.

[Avalux]

41. What is the likelihood she'd be extradited if convicted this second time around?

I feel for her, it's difficult to reach any kind of closure with the Italian court unwilling to stop going after her.

[pnwmom]

43. Different lawyers here have given different opinions. No one really knows for sure. n/t

[Wash. state Desk Jet]

66. The whole of it is nonsense

and a poorly put together face saving measure by the Italian government. It was a business choice to begin with . They threw Knox under the bus because to them it was the better choice. I mean really a place that is billed as a student safe haven having a transient running around with blood dripping down his knife in such a small area is a clear indication of lawlessness . And of course Italy is not immune to corruption.

It was a business decision to throw Knox under the bus. The equation looks like this-politics-law-business.All the same.You can toss in the catholic church too.

Knox more or less was water boarded. On the business end of it simply face the fact that the Italian government faced less scrutiny and long term damages be throwing Knox under the bus .

And the very thought of a transient running around with blood dripping down his knife in that little safe haven villa would not bode well with the Italian people either. Lawlessness-, Politics-law & business.



What you really must understand is how the law actually works in towns that sport a collage that offers what is considered to be the perfect student study setting.How the cops are trained and or conditioned in such places. Or towns or cities that rely heavily on the tourist trade. It would surprise you to find out how down ,dirty and deceptive it can get. And how far over the line it can get where it comes down to these types of localities protecting the interests -the business interests,that which places the bread and butter on the table -or spaghetti for that matter.

It was a choice and throwing Knox under the bus was a clear cut down and dirty business decision.

There is no evidence to prove Knox is guilty and it will made to look as though there is no evidence to prove she could not have done it.

And for the
Italian government that works out perfectly because you see-you cannot prove god exists but at the same time you cannot prove God does not exist.

Let the lawyers and the journalists battle it out within the confines of the law but know, it is all about business.

This is not the first such case in the european theater.

It is all quite down and dirty.

But of course there are those that just must believe Knox is a narcissistic sociopath.

[Adrahil]

61. I don't know if she did it or not....

But our Constitution does not permit double jeopardy. Regardless of the verdict, she should not ever be forced to return to Italy.

[pnwmom]

67. Here's what it boiled down to me.

The room was covered in blood, and yielded dozens of pieces of physical evidence related to only one man, who had been caught recently burglarizing and carrying a knife. He was a friend of the downstairs tenants.

There wasn't a speck of evidence of Amanda in the bloody room, or a speck of Meredith's DNA or blood on Amanda's person.

The prosecution's claim was that Amanda managed to clean her invisible DNA and her invisible fingerprints from the murder room.

How would this even be possible? Don't you have reasonable doubt that she was even in the room?

[Adrahil]

115. I certainly do have more than reasonable doubt.

I'm inclined to think to think she's not guilty, but my point is more fundamental than that. Our Constitution says a prosecutor can't just prosecute ovr and over again until they get the desired result, which is exactly what the Italian prosecutors are doing.

[duffyduff]

90. She didn't do it. They got the killer. The prosecutor is totally demented.

n/t

[Pretzel_Warrior]

62. I guess she'll be knocking Italy off of her list of future places to visit.

Stupid Italy. I was there when they were having slowdowns. Not full strikes, mind you. Just delaying or canceling certain trains to piss people off. Yeah. That will get you what you want.

[pnwmom]

63. And all of Europe, and anywhere else with an extradition agreement.

This will be a real loss to her, on top of having to bear that black stain for the rest of her life.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

64. She should find some way to launch a civil law suit

and sue the shit out of the Italian courts. Further bankrupt that country which is run like shit by it's crony politicians.

[pnwmom]

65. There is some kind of European court of appeals. But I don't think you can go there to

get damages. And I can't imagine any Italian court allowing that.

[mnmoderatedem]

75. what am I missing here?

if the murder took place as presented, stabbing, messy with a trail of blood evidence, there would have been forensic evidence pointing to Knox all over the freaking place.

Did she just have bad defense lawyers at her first trial?

[pnwmom]

77. In Italy, about half of the people convicted at the first trial end up having

their convictions overturned.

It wasn't that she had bad lawyers, it's that the Italian law basically ties their hands behind their backs; and also doesn't give them access to much of the evidence. For example, the raw DNA files still have never been turned over to the defense, even after three trials.

What you are missing is gullibility. Only gullible people could believe the prosecution's story that Amanda and Raffaele could wash away all the invisible traces of themselves from the bloody room, while leaving dozens of pieces of physical evidence linked to Guede.

[duffyduff]

89. It's all a damned joke. I wouldn't believe anything that court system there says.

She's never going to spend one more day in jail.

[pnwmom]

91. But Raffaele, her former boyfriend could. He already spent four years in prison

because he refused to lie about her.

[davidn3600]

105. It's not a 100% sure thing that we wouldnt extradite her back

There is an extradition treaty between Italy and the USA. So technically our country considers their legal system to be legit enough to our standards.
With one exception...double jeopardy. There is a clause in the treaty that allows an exception in the case of double jeopardy.

Whether this qualifies for that exception seems to be something legal analysts can't agree on. The treaty really hasn't been tested before in this manner. However an extradition request would be potentially years away. Even if she's found guilty, she can appeal yet again. And this can be drawn out for a very long time. This is an incredibly slow justice system that they have there. A conviction would have to first be accepted by their highest court before a request for extradition can even be made.

Regardless, if she is found guilty and isn't extradited, she'll never be able to leave the US. She could probably go to countries without an extradition treaty to Italy or the EU, but it'd still be a risk.

[Bill USA]

102. it's pretty obvious they've made up their mind on her the evidence be damned.

They basically tried her in the tabloid newspapers over there and that was the end of it.

[alarimer]

104. Why are the British so convinced she did it?

It appears to be obvious to me that she had nothing to do with it.

Is it just the out-of-control tabloid journalism in Britain?

[davidn3600]

106. Pretty much. The media in Europe for the most part completely tore her apart

It's also why the first trial was such a joke because the jurors were not even told to not listen to the media.

[Wash. state Desk Jet]

109. That is an interesting question

Actually I have friends over there that asked me what I thought about it . They are well aware by the way the way that the media is just a business and not a source of reliable news.

The Kercher's were essentially brain washed by the Italian authorities who were handling the case and feeding the media. The Kercher's believed those people .And consider European opinions about American crime.

Take a look at the McCan kidnapping case and the media and how media flipped or reversed on the McCann's making them out to be the guilty ones. This one went down in Portugal.

The McCann's actually filed law suits against the major media outlets in the UK and the London Times was the first to retract the bull shit and print a apology to the MaC ann's. The rest of it fallowed suit. The Guardian and on and so on.

If you had fallowed that case you would have greater insight into just what the Italian government is up to. Again ,those banks.