Amanda Knox Trial

I agree that the Satanic part, etc is ludicrous.

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

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

julie thorpe said:

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

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

Sigh.

Click to expand...

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

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

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

aquacat said:

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

Click to expand...

I've been reading up on the trial on the True Justice for Meredith Kercher website. It gives a pretty good blow-by-blow account of the trial, presenting evidece the media has chosen to ignore. For instance, the Micheli Report

Also, it seems that both Amanda and Raffaele lied not so much out of fear or bullying, but to keep up with the evidence as it became known and contradicted their stories. Here's that page.

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

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

Rudy Guede's sentence reduced on appeal from 30 to 16 years.
http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php

The 16 years is arrived at because Knox and Sollecito each received 24 years for Meredith’s murder. Sollecito received an extra year, and Knox an extra two years, for the other crimes for which they were found guilty.

Click to expand...

Guede automaticaly gets 1/3 less than them because he chose a fast track trial.

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

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

backslashbaby said:

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

.

Click to expand...

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

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

Automatic Arithmetic and complete compliance with Italian guidelines:

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

*Bumpity Boop*

New information on this case. Apparently there was some seriously dirty DNA testing done in the get go. (me=not surprised)

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

...

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

Click to expand...

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

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

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

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

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

backslashbaby said:

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

Click to expand...

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

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

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

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

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

clintl said:

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

Click to expand...

Not necessarily:

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

crunchyblanket said:

Not necessarily:

Click to expand...

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

Gale Haut said:

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

Click to expand...

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

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

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

It's also worth noting that the Corriere have also, at times, reported evidence to suggest Knox wasn't guilty:

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

She was also given gifts by Italian locals, which isn't really an act that fits with the perception of blanket negative press.

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

While most of the mainstream Italian press seemed to concentrate on directly citing Knox rather than opining or raising additional conjecture, news outlets were also given something else to report – a different report. Not long after Timothy Egan from The New York Times released his only-maybe-quite-barely objective piece in defense of Knox, “An Innocent Abroad,” a couple days before she was to testify, the American journalist was himself cross-examined in La Repubblica and Il Corriere della Sera. Though his piece concentrates on the dubious legitimacy – and it is very deeply dubious – of the investigation and proceedings so far, he passes plenty of unnecessary judgment as well. For him to claim that “In Italy, they see a devil, someone without remorse, inappropriate in her reactions” when gazing upon Ms. Knox is, at best, extraneous. Especially in the specious context in which he drops it.



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




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

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

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

Vince524 said:

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

Click to expand...

Angelina Jolie can play Amanda.

clintl said:

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

Click to expand...

I've heard the same; that the collection of the evidence was tainted.

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

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

Click to expand...

Jeesh. Italians are so melodramatic.

backslashbaby said:

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

Click to expand...

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

Gale Haut said:

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

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

Click to expand...

You mean other than this part:

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

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

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

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

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


ETA: I didn't actually know this, but the nickname 'Foxy Knoxy' wasn't invented by the tabloids.

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

The rest of the article is fairly interesting too.

Example of balanced reporting from Italian press, from Corriere della Sera.

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

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

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