Amanda Knox case: Parents say they're under investigation

Chris November 28, 2009 (6:56 pm)

Good for them ! They should be investigated for attempting to make a mockery of a proud juducial system. Their accusations and behavior may work here, but Italy is another matter. Amanda was apparently Treated Roughly after her arrest ? How about the victim in this case ? How was she treated ? How many even know her name ? Amanda Knox is getting a fair trial and will be held accountable if found guilty. Your not in West Seattle any more Amanda.

Benjamin November 28, 2009 (7:41 pm)

Chris, of course it is terrible that a young woman died. but Amanda had nothing to do with it! just imagine how you would feel if your daughter was in the same situation.

Ric & Diane November 28, 2009 (7:48 pm)

We wish the best for Amanda and your family. Ric & Diane in the Arroyos.

dkg28 November 28, 2009 (8:33 pm)

Benjamin, Ric & Diane…the young woman that was killed…what was her name?? Without Googling it…as Chris mentioned…do you even know the victims name?

lucca November 28, 2009 (9:05 pm)

The name of the victim murdered by Rudy Guede is Meredith Kercher.

The name of the victims being railroaded by the Italian police and Prosecutors are Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito.

These are the 3 innocent victims in this case.

mitch November 28, 2009 (9:19 pm)

This is a country where the prime minister is admired for cavorting with teenage prostitutes our president has to physically prevent the goon from groping our First Lady. These are not rational people and I fear for Amanda.

Macca Dacca November 28, 2009 (9:29 pm)

I am so sick of seeing Edda Mellas’ face and hearing the voice of denial. Even Amanda’s own Italian lawyers are embarrassed by the actions that these two numbskulls have taken in trying to ‘buy’ Amanda’s innocence in the eyes of the American public through the hiring of a PR firm and the whitewashing and interfering of real justice in the murder of Meredith Kercher. The entire country of Italy should sue the Mellas/Knox clan and their PR campaigners for slander and defamation. Especially that idiot knucklehead loser of a stepfather, Chris Mellas. That guy’s got ‘moron’ written all over him.

Z November 28, 2009 (9:35 pm)

Benjamin, how do you know she had nothing to do with it? Were you there? Give me a break… she’s guilty of something I bet.

Macca Dacca November 28, 2009 (9:41 pm)

Nothing to connect her to the crime? What about all of the lying that she did in the early part of the investigation even before she was a suspect? People can rationalize away whatever the hell they want. How about the fact that she falsely accused an innocent man on three separate occasions and let that man sit in jail for two weeks while his life was ruined? Even Edda knew from a previous conversation with her daughter that that man was innocent and said nothing. Shouldn’t that be some sort of crime? Amanda may not be a murderer but she’s definitely a practiced liar and a terrible actress.

Cindy November 28, 2009 (10:25 pm)

I expect a guilty verdict, and if that will happen, then I am satisfied.

Cindy November 28, 2009 (10:28 pm)

Judge Micheli’s Report

To anyone who believes that Amanda Knox is innocent based of the paid for PR champagne directed by David Marriott, I suggest that you do a google search on “Judge Micheli’s Report” .

After reading that report prepared by the judge who had all the information available to him, unlike large parts of the American media, which receives their brief from the hired PR firm whose job it is to help get Amanda Knox freed.

The readers might want to determine what it is that they want.

Do they want justice, meaning that the murderers are jailed, regardless of who they are?

Or do they want a person released from jail even if she might have killed her room mate?

Cindy November 28, 2009 (10:28 pm)

I am currently in Australia, however I am not Australian, American or European.

I have read about this case on the Internet and it has come to my attention that the American media presents Amanda Knox in a way that the readers can only conclude that she must be innocent.

If you do read news reports from around the world you will realize that large parts of the American media do not report on the formidable evidence against Amanda Knox and if you comment on that you could expect to have your post deleted.

Candace Dempsey deleted on one day about 300 comments of posters who were not convinced by Candace Dempsey’s explanations. That happened within 24 hours of Amanda Knox’s house arrest application been rejected.

Considering the reasons cited for the rejection I admit that I agree with that cause of action.

The westseattleherald.com also engaged in selective censoring of people who do not believe that Amanda Knox will be found not guilty.

Cindy November 28, 2009 (10:29 pm)

Hold them accountable!

Let the Knox/Mellas folks prove their highly unlikely and quite frankly unbelievable claim that Amanda had been abused by the Italian police.

I would like to say throw the book at them and their daughter.

Their daughter has already been proven to be a liar.

How anyone could conclude that Amanda Knox is innocent is beyond me when the trial has not yet concluded.

Cindy November 28, 2009 (11:02 pm)

“Chris, of course it is terrible that a young woman died. but Amanda had nothing to do with it! just imagine how you would feel if your daughter was in the same situation.

Comment by Benjamin — November 28, 09 7:41 pm”
.
.
.
.

Multiple scientists believe that Amanda Knox had something to do with Meredith Kerchers death.

Cindy November 28, 2009 (11:08 pm)

“We wish the best for Amanda and your family. Ric & Diane in the Arroyos.

Comment by Ric & Diane — November 28, 09 7:48 pm”
.
.
.
Would you allow your children to share a flat with Amanda Knox?

Cindy November 28, 2009 (11:12 pm)

” The name of the victim murdered by Rudy Guede is Meredith Kercher.

The name of the victims being railroaded by the Italian police and Prosecutors are Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito.

These are the 3 innocent victims in this case.

Comment by lucca — November 28, 09 9:05 pm ”
.
.
.
Lucca,

The two prime murder suspects on trial are by no means victims.

Just wait some more days and it will be official what they are.

Cindy November 28, 2009 (11:15 pm)

“This is a country where the prime minister is admired for cavorting with teenage prostitutes our president has to physically prevent the goon from groping our First Lady. These are not rational people and I fear for Amanda.

Comment by mitch — November 28, 09 9:19 pm”
.
.
.
I do not fear for Amanda Knox!

I fear Amanda Knox.

Cindy November 28, 2009 (11:17 pm)

mitch,
.
.

I do not fear for Amanda Knox!

I fear Amanda Knox.

Rachel November 29, 2009 (6:28 am)

I live in Italy and lots of things about this country get on my nerves. They drive like maniacs, they’re rude and unreliable, they’re incredibly corrupt etc and Berlusconi is an idiot and an imbecile. But I really believe there is enough evidence to convict Amanda. Her alibi is non-existent, she was caught cleaning the crime scene with bleach, she knew details about the murder she couldn’t have known, the break-in was obviously staged etc etc etc. Just because you don’t think much of the Italians doesn’t mean Amanda Knox can’t be a psychopath.

Meghan November 29, 2009 (8:24 am)

Anyone who has followed this case closely knows that there simply isn’t enough evidence (by a LONG shot) to convict Amanda Knox or her boyfriend. They’ve convicted the person who murdered Meredith and they did not find a single piece of Amanda’s or Raffaello’s DNA in Meredith’s room — not a hair, nothing. Do you honestly think 2 people could brutally beat someone to death and not leave a single piece of DNA behind?? It’s virtually impossible. That’s why SO MANY independent investigators have stated their firm belief that they are innocent. But the prosecutor is a narcissist (who is actually himself under investigation for many misdeeds even as he prosecutes this case) who basically created a bizarre (depraved actually) murder scenario and refuses to let hard evidence get in his way. He knows she’s innocent. She is so clearly being framed and the whole thing is so sick, you couldn’t write a more fictional story.

rw November 29, 2009 (8:24 am)

Half of the posts in this thread are from “Cindy,” and you have to wonder who the heck she is and why she seems obsessed with conviction.

DR November 29, 2009 (11:32 am)

I have several friends from Italy who have been translating things for me. I am sad to say, I think she is very guilty, but could never say for sure 100%, not being on the jury. I see in these comments people are saying their is no DNA. Actually, according to what my friends in Italy tell me there is not only DNA but fingerprints in the victims blood, not to mention video surveillance showing that Amanda Knox and her boyfriend lied about when they were and were not in the apt, among many other things.
If nothing else, the fact she said she plugged her ears to drowned out the screaming of her room mate as she was raped and murdered makes her someone I think is despicable.
I understand the parents standing by her, however. When it is your child you believe what they tell you, that is completely normal

DR November 29, 2009 (11:34 am)

Meghan,
And the point of her being framed is??? An attractive, blond American girl is not exactly the easiest of targets. I see no political advantage in his going after her. She isn’t exactly a ‘big fish’, is she?

Bridget November 29, 2009 (12:49 pm)

I can’t believe how many misinformed people are baying for the life imprisonment of two young people they don’t even know. I find it a depressing indictment of human nature. Where’s the joy in seeing two young people’s lives over, even if they are guilty, which there is NO proof that they are.

There is proof that the investigation was mishandled and the suspects decided on before any ‘evidence’ was collected. The leaks to the papers, the conjecture past and present by the prosecutor, the leaking of Amanda’s diary to the press, the mistranslating, the changing numbers ascribed to the amount of DNA, the whole process stinks to high heavens.

And since when is any judicial system infallible? And since when is the italian judicial system even aiming to be honest? The mafia is only the illegal arm of the way things work in italy, the mafia model is a common one.

But most shocking of all are the people wanting to punish young people they don’t know without any first hand knowledge. It’s ugly, ugly, ugly. And by the way, none of them knew Meridith either, they just want to jump on a band wagon of hate.

DR November 29, 2009 (1:04 pm)

Have something from Meredith’s family, for a change.
http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php

and here is a site that actually gives the evidence.
http://perugiamurderfile.org/index.php

luckymom30 November 29, 2009 (1:07 pm)

I think I will wait until the verdict is announced before making any judgement calls. The Knox family are former neighbors.

JumboJim November 29, 2009 (3:09 pm)

All one has to do is to read the comments here to get an icy chill at the thought they could end up being tried by a jury made up of many of the West Seattleites commenting here. The things that some people think are relevant or not are scary. Also, the amount of pre-judging people do based on what they hear/read in the media is amazing.
How many commenters here have sat in the court each day?
How many are forming judgements based on media reports?

WSB November 29, 2009 (3:21 pm)

Just a note — we have no proof on the location of commenters (even IP addresses don’t trace people down – Comcast might put you, for example, in Gig Harbor when you’re right here in WS).
.
In nationally/internationally notable cases like this one, Nicholas Francisco, etc., people seem to pull searches, or have Google Alerts set, to find the story being covered anywhere, and go comment wherever they find it. (We are among the many news sites indexed by Google News.) – TR

DR November 29, 2009 (3:21 pm)

JumboJim, the problem is the media is skewed on way in this country. I have been reading the Judge’s reports as translated by my Italian friends. All court records are public so the residents of Italy can see how their system is working.
Here are a couple of translations from the Judge’s reports.

http://www.zimbio.com/Amanda+Knox/articles/58/Understanding+Micheli+2+Judge+Micheli+Rejected

http://www.zimbio.com/Raffaele+Sollecito/articles/81/Understanding+Micheli+4+Staged+Scene+Returned

http://www.zimbio.com/Raffaele+Sollecito/articles/109/Best+Shot+Making+Amanda+Knox+Timeline+Alibi

There are articles and a lot of info on there for BOTH sides.
But you are correct, as I said, I could not say 100% for sure if she is guilty unless was on the jury .

dog November 29, 2009 (4:22 pm)

People clearly react on an emotional level to the case rather than a rational level. It is a little spooky to see how eager people are to judge without really knowing any facts. You see this kind of thing in politics all the time; opinions based on emotions rather than facts.

Warren Knuth November 29, 2009 (10:18 pm)

“Amanda had absolutely nothing to do with the murder. The outpouring of abuse toward her is extremely disturbing. I am convinced she is innocent, and I cannot understand why there has been such a bloodthirsty rush to judgment. Some of the posts here are on the verge of psycotic.”

Dani November 30, 2009 (2:11 am)

“It is easy to judge others when you are not walking in their shoes.”

Well, what about Edda Mellas knowing that Lumumba is innocent but she did nothing to get him freed.

Did she think that it would be a good idea if he is scarified instead of the real murderer who will receive the verdict soon?

If Amanda Knox did not clean up the murder scene why was she the only person living in that house whose finger prints were not present in her own room?

Actually there were only two fingerprints of Amanda Knox in the whole house, dramatically less finger prints than any other resident left in the house.

One of the two finger prints was in Meredith Kercher’s blood. That alone is enough for a guilty verdict.
Then there is the DNA evidence which by itself is also sufficient to convict her.

There is a lot more evidence against Amanda Knox.

chris james November 30, 2009 (4:05 am)

Try Googling the following sentence.

……..Powerpoints #13: We Now Examine The Compelling Evidence For The REAL Railroading From Hell………

Watch this Powerpoint show and your eyes will be opened. Then if you wish, peruse the site. I am not affiliated with the site in any way but am convinced now more than ever of Knox’s guilt now I have read the evidence against her without her PR being able to try and twist things.

RIP Meredith

Simon November 30, 2009 (9:27 am)

Just to clear a few things up as it is clear the American media machine (which is about the only currupt thing involved in this whole case) has mislead the American public (I am not American FYI, not that it matters):

Would people please please read the actual evidence which is freely available online – if you do then you will be asking the following questions of AK and RS. Questions that they cannot/have not answered:

1) How did AK’s DNA get mixed with Kerchers blood in four seperate places if AK was not present when blood was spilt?

2) Why did AK say she “had to cover her ears to block out the screams”?

3) Why did she then say she was at her boyfriends (which he now says she was not)?

4) Why did Amanda repeatly say that she slept in till 10:00 the morning after murder when phone records prove that she was up at 06:00?

5) Who had access to the apartment to clean it up other than AK? If it were Guede why did he not clean up the incriminating evidence that implecated himself but did the rest? If he did do this then did he really have the time and means to murder Kercher, go out in town for the night (this is proven by several key witnesses) break back in, clean it up, leave his own DNA but clean up the rest, then escape again before AK arrived?

6) Why did AK implecate an innocent man?

7) Why did she lie about knowing Guede when it is proven that she had met him many times?

8) Why does AK still not have an alibi?

9) Why did AK say that Kercher died in “slow agony” before an autopsy had been performed and how did she know this?

Now Amanda Knox cannot answer these questions herself and I suspect that the AK supporters cannot either. The rest of the sane world can, however, and this is why she will be rightfully found guilty.

READ THE EVIDENCE!

Mima November 30, 2009 (11:25 am)

Life in prison means a minimum of 21 years in Italy. With good behaviour she can be out in 12 year minus the 2 years she already spent there. In 10 years she will be back in the US. She is guilty—–there is a mountain of evidence against her.

wgirl November 30, 2009 (12:50 pm)

Thank goodness the trial is almost over. Given the overwhelming amount of evidence against Ms Knox, she’s going to spend the rest of her life behind bars. Her parents should be grateful that Italy doesn’t have the death penalty. I just hope she doesn’t eventually get out on parole or something because she is a danger to anyone who crosses her.

Meg November 30, 2009 (1:11 pm)

I think both sides that post websites are biased. I honestly do not know what to believe and just look forward to hearing the verdict of the jury b/c i think we all have to have faith in the jurors.

Mary H. December 1, 2009 (3:25 am)

On the contrary, Simon, the Amanda Knox supporters can and will answer all your questions. To begin with:

1) How did AK’s DNA get mixed with Kercher’s blood in four separate places if AK was not present when blood was spilt?

ANSWER: First of all, are you sure the prosecutor argued this in his closing? If so, you should document it, and I don’t mean by just quoting Harry Rag. It is already known that Meredith’s blood was left in several places in the bathroom. As for how samples of Amanda’s blood got around, well, there are numerous possible ways, but since she was examined by a doctor when she was arrested and no injuries were found, we have to conclude any blood that was hers was not there as a result of the murder.

2) Why did AK say she “had to cover her ears to block out the screams”?

ANSWER: That was Amanda’s description of what she was doing when Lumumba was in the bedroom with Meredith. It turned out he wasn’t in the bedroom with Meredith; hence, there is no validity to her description. It was made under duress, and she later withdrew it.

3) Why did she then say she was at her boyfriend’s (which he now says she was not)?

ANSWER: From the beginning, Amanda said she was at her boyfriend’s. The only time she said otherwise was during the interrogation, when she also made other statements that turned out to be false – e.g., Lumumba committed the murder, she heard Meredith scream. Under interrogation, Raffaele said he couldn’t remember whether or not she spent the night. But nobody believes Raffaele anyway, so what difference does it make?

4) Why did Amanda repeatedly say that she slept in till 10:00 the morning after murder when phone records prove that she was up at 06:00?

ANSWER: Phone records show Amanda’s phone was turned on between 5:30 and 6:00 a.m. That is not an indication of her getting up; it is an indication of her turning her phone on. She probably then went back to sleep and got up at 10.

5) Who had access to the apartment to clean it up other than AK? If it were Guede why did he not clean up the incriminating evidence that implicated himself but did the rest? If he did do this then did he really have the time and means to murder Kercher, go out in town for the night (this is proven by several key witnesses) break back in, clean it up, leave his own DNA but clean up the rest, then escape again before AK arrived?

ANSWER: No one cleaned up the apartment. The crime scene was a mess, with pools of blood on the floor and bedding strewn around. There was blood in the bathroom and Guede’s feces in the toilet of the other bathroom. No cleaning supplies or bloody rags or mops were ever found. There was no clean-up.

6) Why did AK implicate an innocent man?

ANSWER: The police told Amanda that the person she had received a text message from on the night of the murder was the murderer. When she found out it was Lumumba, she believed the police. It is not Amanda’s fault that the police then arrested and imprisoned Lumumba without any further evidence and did not provide him with a lawyer.

7) Why did she lie about knowing Guede when it is proven that she had met him many times?

ANSWER: Can you provide a citation on this (not from truejustice or perugiamurderfiles)? As far as I know, it was common knowledge that Amanda had walked home from a bar one night with a group of people that included Guede and Meredith, and she had been at the apartment downstairs when Guede was visiting there. Where is the documentation that she denied having met Guede?

8. Why does AK still not have an alibi?

ANSWER; Amanda has the same alibi she always had. She spent the night at Raffaele’s.

9) Why did AK say that Kercher died in “slow agony” before an autopsy had been performed and how did she know this?

ANSWER: Amanda didn’t say Meredith died in “slow agony;” Judge Claudia Matteini said it. This is extremely easy to document, if you are looking at original sources and not at biased, anti-Amanda websites.

READ THE EVIDENCE!

Simon December 1, 2009 (7:23 am)

On the contrary:

ANSWER: First of all, are you sure the prosecutor argued this in his closing? If so, you should document it, and I don’t mean by just quoting Harry Rag. It is already known that Meredith’s blood was left in several places in the bathroom. As for how samples of Amanda’s blood got around, well, there are numerous possible ways, but since she was examined by a doctor when she was arrested and no injuries were found, we have to conclude any blood that was hers was not there as a result of the murder.

Amanda is proven to have a cut on her neck and also one on her hand. This is all in the judges report which is freely available online. Either way how did the DNA get mixed if she was not there?

ANSWER: That was Amanda’s description of what she was doing when Lumumba was in the bedroom with Meredith. It turned out he wasn’t in the bedroom with Meredith; hence, there is no validity to her description. It was made under duress, and she later withdrew it.

Speaks volumes I’d argue. How on earth do you get something like that wrong? Oh, I forgot – her dreams became real. She has withdrawn a number of things after they had been proved wrong. Why would she do this? Also, this whole duress this is something made up by people such as yourselves.

ANSWER: From the beginning, Amanda said she was at her boyfriend’s. The only time she said otherwise was during the interrogation, when she also made other statements that turned out to be false – e.g., Lumumba committed the murder, she heard Meredith scream. Under interrogation, Raffaele said he couldn’t remember whether or not she spent the night. But nobody believes Raffaele anyway, so what difference does it make?

You, like Amanda, have just contradicted yourself. If she had said it from the beginning how did she say she heard the screams? Why won’t Raffaelle back her up? This was not used in the interrogation (lovely word instead of interview by the way) when she was not even under arrest. It was said in a 6 hour interview the next day. She still has no alibi that has been proven. Why? She is also proven to have lied about her whereabouts on the night as several key witnesses have placed her in town and not at her boyfriends. Why would she lie…. again?

ANSWER: Phone records show Amanda’s phone was turned on between 5:30 and 6:00 a.m. That is not an indication of her getting up; it is an indication of her turning her phone on. She probably then went back to sleep and got up at 10.

Probably? Jesus, your explaintion is thin. She said she slept in – she was proven to be up/awake. She lied about this? Why?

ANSWER: No one cleaned up the apartment. The crime scene was a mess, with pools of blood on the floor and bedding strewn around. There was blood in the bathroom and Guede’s feces in the toilet of the other bathroom. No cleaning supplies or bloody rags or mops were ever found. There was no clean-up.

There was, most defintely, a clean up and this is beyong doubt. Luminol is designed to show up blood that has been cleaned with bleach. She had a shower and said there were spots of blood and a foot print. Google the image of the cleaned up blood and it is everywhere. So who could have done this? Only her.

ANSWER: The police told Amanda that the person she had received a text message from on the night of the murder was the murderer. When she found out it was Lumumba, she believed the police. It is not Amanda’s fault that the police then arrested and imprisoned Lumumba without any further evidence and did not provide him with a lawyer.

This is simply not true. She said he was the last person with Kercher and then heard screams! Not her fault? Are you on the same drugs.

ANSWER: Can you provide a citation on this (not from truejustice or perugiamurderfiles)? As far as I know, it was common knowledge that Amanda had walked home from a bar one night with a group of people that included Guede and Meredith, and she had been at the apartment downstairs when Guede was visiting there. Where is the documentation that she denied having met Guede?

It is all in the report from the judge micheli that is from neither of your two stated sources so yes I can. Could you provide citation of the things you have said?

ANSWER; Amanda has the same alibi she always had. She spent the night at Raffaele’s.

Perhaps I should rephrase. Why did Amanda change her alibi three times and why can no-one support her current version of events? Her saying she was somewhere when no one backs her up IS NOT an alibi.

ANSWER: Amanda didn’t say Meredith died in “slow agony;” Judge Claudia Matteini said it. This is extremely easy to document, if you are looking at original sources and not at biased, anti-Amanda websites.

She did say this and Filomena testified to this in court. Fact.

All of this is in the Micheli report which is freely available in it’s original form online. It is not biased in any way and is official documentation.

READ THE EVIDENCE!

Simon December 1, 2009 (7:33 am)

Sorry, there was a mistake with the first answer and I was timed out while editing:

It WAS NOT proven that there was a cut on her hand and neck, but hypothesised.The part which was proven was that AK DNA was mixed with Kerchers blood in Filomena’s room where there was a “break in”. Now it is fact that the breakin was staged so who could have got some of Amanda DNA after the murder, broken in and mixed it with some of Kerchers blood and then placed it in Filomena’s room? Hmmm.

Mary H. December 1, 2009 (9:56 am)

Simon: This is all in the judge’s report which is freely available online. Either way how did the DNA get mixed if she was not there?
Reality: Because both women lived in the same house. Your DNA is mixed with your housemates’ DNA, too.
[RE: ANSWER: That was Amanda’s description of what she was doing when Lumumba was in the bedroom with Meredith. It turned out he wasn’t in the bedroom with Meredith; hence, there is no validity to her description. It was made under duress, and she later withdrew it.]:
Simon: Speaks volumes I’d argue. How on earth do you get something like that wrong?
Reality: You get it wrong when the police are telling you to agree with them or you’ll go to prison for 30 years and never see your family again.
Simon: Oh, I forgot – her dreams became real. She has withdrawn a number of things after they had been proved wrong. Why would she do this? Also, this whole duress this is something made up by people such as yourselves.
Reality: Yes, people like me, criminologists, forensic psychologists and the Innocence Project. I’m sure you know more about it than they do, though. She withdrew the false information given under duress because when she got out of the interrogation, she felt free to tell the truth again.
Simon: You, like Amanda, have just contradicted yourself. If she had said it from the beginning how did she say she heard the screams?
Reality: Did you actually read what I wrote last time? Have you been following this case at all? I will repeat: The only time she said she heard screams was during the interrogation, when she was under duress. She had been speaking to the police for four days before the interrogation; during that time she explained she had spent the night at Raffaele’s.
Simon: Why won’t Raffaelle back her up? This was not used in the interrogation (lovely word instead of interview by the way) when she was not even under arrest. It was said in a 6 hour interview the next day. She still has no alibi that has been proven. Why?
Reality: This is the first time I’ve encountered even one of the Amanda-haters claiming it was an interview and not an interrogation. Amanda doesn’t have to prove her alibi – the prosecution has to disprove it, and they have no evidence to do so.
Simon: She is also proven to have lied about her whereabouts on the night as several key witnesses have placed her in town and not at her boyfriends. Why would she lie…. again?
Reality: Proven? Completely false. Document it.
[RE: Cell phone evidence]:
Simon: Probably? Jesus, your explaintion is thin.
Reality: It’s not up to the defense to prove she was asleep; it’s up to the prosecution to prove she was up. They can’t do that based on the cell phone records, so the records are completely irrelevant.
Simon: She said she slept in – she was proven to be up/awake.
Reality: Completely false. Document it.
Simon: There was, most defintely, a clean up and this is beyong doubt.
Reality: Completely false. Document it.
Simon: Luminol is designed to show up blood that has been cleaned with bleach. She had a shower and said there were spots of blood and a foot print. Google the image of the cleaned up blood and it is everywhere. So who could have done this? Only her.
Reality: Are you kidding? Did you just start following this trial in the last week or so? When you look at the picture of the pink luminol in the bathroom, you are not looking at blood. This is information that was available two years ago. The forensic investigators also said there were spots of blood and a footprint in the bathroom; nothing more.
[RE: ANSWER: The police told Amanda that the person she had received a text message from on the night of the murder was the murderer. When she found out it was Lumumba, she believed the police.]:
Simon: This is simply not true. She said he was the last person with Kercher and then heard screams! Not her fault? Are you on the same drugs.
Reality: Apparently, you have not “read the evidence” of Amanda’s testimony when she took the stand. And your chronology is a little mixed up.
Simon: It is all in the report from the judge micheli that is from neither of your two stated sources so yes I can. Could you provide citation of the things you have said?
Reality: I can provide citations of what I have claimed and of what actually happened. I can’t provide citations of things that didn’t happen, such as there having been a clean-up or that Amanda said she never met Guede.
Simon: Perhaps I should rephrase. Why did Amanda change her alibi three times and why can no-one support her current version of events? Her saying she was somewhere when no one backs her up IS NOT an alibi.
Reality: Too late to rephrase. You’ve spread false information, pure and simple. She changed her story once, during the interrogation. Otherwise, she had the same story/alibi before the interrogation, then reverted to it afterward and has stuck to it ever since. Two stories, one told freely before and after the interrogation, and one told while she was being threatened by police.
Simon: She did say this and Filomena testified to this in court. Fact.
Reality: Prove it. Here is one article quoting Matteini saying it: http://www.seattlepi.com/local/338995_knox10.html
Can you provide a citation to Filomena testifying to it in court?
Simon: All of this is in the Micheli report which is freely available in it’s original form online. It is not biased in any way and is official documentation.
Reality: Not biased? Let’s not forget that the judges were under the spell of Mignini when they wrote their reports. In Claudia Matteini’s report, written one week after the murder, she said the murder was committed with Raffaele’s flick knife and that Lumumba committed the crime. Both judges wrote about what they envisioned happening at the murder, not what actually happened. The judges were not writing their reports based on evidence, and they were mistaken.

Mary H. December 1, 2009 (10:02 am)

Simon: Now it is fact that the breakin was staged so who could have got some of Amanda DNA after the murder, broken in and mixed it with some of Kerchers blood and then placed it in Filomena’s room? Hmmm.
Reality; It is not a fact, it is a guess. No one knows whether or not Guede did it; most likely he did. Amanda’s DNA could have been picked up anywhere in the house.
However, given the way the DNA on the kitchen knife was “collected,” I would not believe any of the DNA reports provided by Patrizia Stefanoni.

wgirl December 1, 2009 (10:43 am)

I’m so glad it’s almost over. Very rarely is there a trial that’s this cut and dried. She’s guilty. Her parents should be very grateful that there is no death penalty in Italy.

Brooke December 1, 2009 (6:43 pm)

Someone should do a doctorial thesis for mass media on this case. I cannot believe what is quoted as being “known” that was never reported in anything more reliable than a tabloid prior to the trail and never brought up as evidence in the trail.

Some of the Facts: After about 2 hours of sleep when her head cleared, Amanda tried to retract her statements about Patrick and murder – she was not allowed to and the police moved forward with his arrest.

There has been no established relationship between Amanda and Rude – no communication, nobody seeing the two of them out together – when/how would she have been able to put him under her influence to the point of him committing murder for her?

Amanda cannot produce an iron-clad alibi for the time of the murder, because the investigation was not handled properly and the time of death cannot be pin-pointed. Raffaele’s neighbor did however, come to his flat the night Meredith was murdered to tell him that she did not need a ride the next morning and she saw Amanda there. Amanda was at Raffaele’s apartment that night.

The “dna” sample on the knife is too small to be scientifically reliable and there is NO blood on the knife. The dna tests could not be reproduced because the entire sample was destroyed in the initial testing. The seals on the machine were broken to override its limits to even get the “match” they got. This is completely unreliable.

The knife could not have made at least some of the wounds, therefore it cannot be the murder weapon and the fact that Amanda’s dna is on the handle is irrelevant.

The bra clasp was uncollected for weeks, during which time it moved around the room and changed color (photographic evidence of both) and was finally found under a rug (which it wasn’t under earlier per photos). When it was collected, 3 people handled it before putting into an evidence bag (video). A dna expert testified that you could not leave dna on the metal clasp and not on the material. This cannot be reliable. And this is the only evidence connecting Raffaele to the crime. The footprint that the prosecutor said was his, couldn’t be his due to a foot condition he has where one of his toes will not leave a print (document by his medical records). No case against Raffaele.

The shop owner who said Amanda bought cleaning supplies the next morning did not come forward for weeks. He remembered her in detail because he had met her before when she and Raffaele were at a bar with Amanda’s Italian Uncle. He recalled the gap in Amanda’s teeth. Only problem, he saw them a month or so before Amanda got to Italy, she had not met Raffaele yet (as she wasn’t even in the Country), she has no Italian Uncle or a gap in her teeth. This witness is not the least be reliable.

I could go on and on…. Rude committed this horrible murder of Meredith, a young lady who in no way deserved this ending. The evidence against him is overwhelming – his dna, fingerprints, etc. are everywhere. Railroading 2 innocent people will not bring justice to Meredith or the Kercher family. Peace be with the Kerchers.

Simon December 2, 2009 (1:04 am)

Mary H – what is clear to me is that you do not care if she is guilty or not but rather whether there is enough evidence. My key driver is not the technicalities of the law but rather justice. I think OJ was guilty if that helps. My last post, as this one is also, is written at work and rather hastily so apologies if the structure is not too up to scratch, typo’s, etc. You pay no regard to the fact that Amanda cannot account for many things. But you say “no-one believes Raffaelle anyway so what does it matter”. Well it matters because she might have well said she was on the moon and it matter because no-one believes what Amanda says either so I am not sure of your point as it seems very flimsy. With regards to the judges (plural) who allowed the case to go to trial it is because they were “under a spell” – ridiculous. With regards to the DNA – mine may well be mixed with my partners but it’s not with her blood and it’s not in the room where there was a break-in. With regards to the break in do you honestly, for one second, believe that someone broke in, ransacked the room, did not steal anything, and then placed the bits of glass on top of the ransacked things afterwards? This is not theory – it’s a physical fact that glass cannot teleport. With regards to Guede being the one who committed the murder alone as well as the break-in (although I recognize you have not directly said this), do you really believe that Guede broke in, committed the murder, went into town, broke back in, cleaned up loads of blood but left all the evidence incriminating himself, and then left? If so you are delusional. With regards to where you say blood was this is simply not true. For example there was blood on the faucet among other places – this discredits you to say the least and indicates you embellish evidence – I no longer believe what you write. For every forensic expert saying the DNA is too small there is another that says it is not. With regards to Amanda accusing an innocent man “and you get it wrong when your facing 30 years” – no, you don’t. You really, really don’t do that. Worked out well though eh? With regards to me being allowed to rephrase and you saying it is too late – no it’s not and your actions are churlish, a sign of someone on the back foot and very hypocritical. She may have changed her testimony back but only when found out – to me a sign of guilt. With regards to citations – please don’t use things from a Seattle publication, it is as ridiculous as your aspersions, and all the criminologists and forensic psychologists that are, oh, all in America. Strange huh?

Have a nice day!

Simon December 2, 2009 (1:09 am)

Brooke – excellent post and should certainly make people think. Very well structured and things like writing (video) as a sign of fact are ace. If all you say is correct then AK and RS will get off no problem. If they get found guilty then it rubbish.

Mary H. December 2, 2009 (9:56 pm)

So, Simon, I take it this means you’re not going to provide citations for the claims I asked you to document?

It’s a little ironic, when you consider that this dialog started because you said, “Now Amanda Knox cannot answer these questions herself and I suspect that the AK supporters cannot either.”

But it’s fine. I doubt your opinion will be worth much to any of the contributors to this blog once they read your closing remarks:

“With regards to citations – please don’t use things from a Seattle publication, it is as ridiculous as your aspersions….”

Simon December 3, 2009 (12:47 am)

I not really sure what your last comment means Mary and would love you to explain it. I doubt you will, however, as you pick and choose what you reply to much in the same way you edit my replies or choose to ignore certain parts to meet your own ends. What is clear, though, is the way you try and garner support and look for a gang mentality – this is clearly a sign of low self-esteem and I feel for you. This may account for your hypocrisy and compulsive attitude.

Chin up!

As said if she is found guilty then you are wrong – simple as that. If she is found innocent then I digress and good luck to her. Not that this is about point scoring of course – you should pay attention to that in my opinion.

RE: Official Citation – do me a favour Mary and show me your examples otherwise you look an idiot asking for them and not providing them yourself. I reckon you think I need some educating so get on it! Doing something positive is a big step to over coming your self-esteem issues. We can all do amateur psychology you see…

Mary H. December 3, 2009 (1:12 am)

Here you go, Doctor. A couple from the British papers. I can get it in the original Italian if you want.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article2844315.ece

[Matteini] said that because the blade had missed the carotid artery, “death was preceded by a relatively slow agony”. It was not yet established who had dealt the mortal blow.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1568860/Meredith-Kercher-murder-Judges-report.html

From reading the first summary of Dr Lalli’s report, deposited at the court on November 8 2007, after the autopsy on the corpse of Meredith Kercher, it emerges that the wound had not hit the carotide artery so the death was preceded by a relatively slow agony, circumstances which allow use to date back the time of the criminal act to between 21.30pm and 11.30pm on the day of November 1 2007, a timetable which tallies with the consumption of dinner in an hour before 9pm.

Now what was that you were saying about Filomena?

Mary H. December 3, 2009 (1:17 am)

Oops, I forgot to answer this:

“I not really sure what your last comment means Mary and would love you to explain it.”

It means that when people from Seattle read this blog and see you criticizing their newspapers, they’re going to wonder why you would expect them to care about what you think when you think so little of them.

Mary H. December 3, 2009 (1:28 am)

Simon, I don;t understand why you say so many contemptuous things and then add, “Have a nice day!” and “Chin up!”

Is this that hypocrisy you’ve been talking about?

Simon December 3, 2009 (9:13 am)

Damning testimony that Knox Accussed Patrick under oath not under duress:
All the police witnesses testified under oath that Amanda Knox had voluntarily accused Diya Lumumba of murdering Meredith, and that during she had been treated well.

WSB December 3, 2009 (9:25 am)

Those of you who’ve been participating here – I don’t know where all this cutting and pasting is coming from and it may be a violation of copyright for all I know, and I have just been flagged to this thread, as cutting and pasting from other websites, more than a sentence or two, is against our rules. You are welcome to post links but no more long excerpts, and those currently in queue are not going through – TR (WSB editor)

Connie Deerin Dittrich December 3, 2009 (3:54 pm)

To Amanda and her family, I hope that things go well for you when the jury returns their verdict. Don’t worry what detractors may say, you know your truth and it will keep you free. All the very best to you as you begin to get your life back. Your friend, Connie

wgirl December 3, 2009 (6:06 pm)

The evidence speaks volumes–She is going to be convicted. I was starting to feel really bad for her parents, and then I saw the pictures of them in court today. OMG–Their daughter is getting ready to spend the rest of her life in prison, and they’re mugging for the cameras! There was one picture of Ms Mellas and her 19 year old daughter both had cameras. They were leaning back taking pictures in the court room, big smiles on their faces like whoopee Free Trip To Italy! It’s unbelievable. I think the parents are they reason the court is asking for nine months solitary and charging the parents with defamation. They are so obnoxious the Italians are trying to get rid of them.

Simon December 4, 2009 (12:29 am)

TR (WSB editor)- very frustrating as I spent a long time researching those testimonies from a variety of sources, all public (so no copyright infringments you’ll be glad to know). I appreciate your rules, however, and should have researched those before breaking them – you have my apologies. Can’t imagine for one second who flagged it to you though ;)

Mary H. December 4, 2009 (2:48 am)

As TR said, Simon, you are still welcome to post your links.

Also, I think you misunderstand — your excerpts were never posted. TR made his comment 12 minutes after your attempted post, and wrote, “[long excerpts] currently in queue are not going through.”

It was probably a moderator from the blog who caught the excerpts and notified TR. I was not aware of the rules against excerpts. and I never flag anyone, anyway.

dave December 4, 2009 (3:12 pm)

just in – the right decision – GUILTY

Wilfred December 4, 2009 (5:06 pm)

Amanda was not convicted because whether she murdered her roommate or not. She was convicted by the Italian media and people of Italy long before the verdict were read today. I was expecting this 100% and I was praying that may be a miracle would make the verdict “NOT GUILTY”. And this is all because these Italian bums hate Americans. Not long ago a 6 years old child travelling to that junk country with family was shot by some hooligans. The dying American child gave his heart to another Italian child who was in desperate need of a heart implant and saved his life. That is how good hearted Americans are. I have failed to understand why this country hates America so much? Just 2 months earlier their court system convicted 23 American FBI officers in absentia. This clearly shows how much this country and their people hate America and we parents are the biggest fools to send our kids to their counry for studies and buy their goods and give them tons of business. There was not even a shred of evidence against Amanda knox which would stand even for a day in American court system and this case took more than 2 years to come to this nasty conclusion by convicting an innocent girl without finding the true killer. I think it is high time we Americans should learn who our real friends are and who our foe are.

ric eads December 4, 2009 (5:10 pm)

Stop travel anywhere! Avoid the possibility that you or a loved one may find the reality of a foreign country to be so unfair.

Louis Fir December 4, 2009 (9:49 pm)

Lol, this story is going to become a foriegn policy bargaining chip, hyped by the CIA. USA USA USA, this will be in the news a long time, maybe it’ll effect tourism, oooh, clever. So when you ask yourself why you care about this case, lol, now you know. Bet she gets more coverage than the war.

I’ve never met anyone who got so stoned they wouldn’t remember a murder, or details of an evening like that. Total bull.

Like dude said earlier:
“Just 2 months earlier their court system convicted 23 American CIA agents in absentia.”

Gee, wonder why?

Gabry December 5, 2009 (12:48 am)

Sorry to say but some of you guys are really out of your mind.

A girl has been killed in the house where she used to live and it’s a proven fact Rudy, Amanda and Raffaele were there at the time of her death.

Let’s look at how they acted after the murder was discovered AND in their trials:

Rudy FLED to Germany and surrendered to the police after being found. He turned down a normal trial to avoid the jail for life sentence and he was found guilty. He was there, there were lots of prints and DNA traces on Amanda’s body, he’s also been convicted for rape. What was his story? “I had a fight with someone but I don’t remember how he looked like”. Nice, 30 years is your prize, try again at the appeal.

Raffaele called the police to denounce a theft in the house allegedly the thief entered through the window after breaking its glass with a stone taken from the nearby garden. Now remember that it was no bullet proof glass and you don’t need to throw a stone to break the window open, furthenmore, if you want to sneak into a house to steal you must make no noise so it’s totally out of the question.

It’s a funny story, unfortunately the police was there 5 minutes before he called so they all knew it was a con. He was there and he has not seen who killed Meredith, just like Rudy.
If you put 3 people into 3 separate rooms, there’s NO WAY they can tell the same lie, at least not in the same details and this is why Rudy claims he had a fight while Raffaele didn’t. It’s 2 lies that don’t coincide.

I haven’t seen, I don’t remember… yes yes… what’s your DNA doing on Mez’s bra then?

Let’s look at how Amanda acted. She’s been in jail for 2 years by now (and I hope she remains there for much longer than 26 years though unfortunately we all know she’ll be out in less than 10 probably) and changed her story 20 times at least.
Her first smart move was to accuse her boss at the bar, Patrick Lumumba because she was trying to keep Rudy away from the crime scene.
That’s great, unfortunately Lumumba had an alibi and had nothing to do with this murder, he just wasn’t there. Now obviously his life has been ruined but in the meanwhile Amanda proved she was not inclined to tell the truth about events (guess why?) and therefore she has been found guilty of slander in this case too (this happened because she lied on this and on many other things to the prosecutor trying to avoid conviction).

All of her trial has been characterized by “I don’t know” and “I don’t remember”. And then finally “I was shocked”. You are innocent? Then tell the truth about it, there’s no point in being scared of anything because your only smart move is to tell the truth by showing the prosecutors you WANT to find Mez’s murderer because it’s not you. As you can see it’s the opposite of blaming someone else or “forgetting” what happened.

Everyone knows she was there, she used to live there. Try again at the appeal, maybe you can say it was the aliens.

Now when 3 people do not say which of them is the murderer it’s obvious they are ALL murderers.

The problem with you guys is that you simply can’t accept the truth. Mez died and you must never expect a confession because the confessions only come when there’s a crime committed by multiple people only one of which is immaculate.

THAT is the case when the immaculate guy will take all the responsibility with a confession because they all know his immaculate status will grant him the lightest of all verdicts. This is not the case of course and these 3 guys are not professional murderers.

The girl died, those 3 guys were there. CIA, the media and anything else have got nothing to do with it. They doomed themselves with doing the murder and they failed to find an alibi and mask their traces so the prosecutors were able to rebuild the crime scene perfectly. There’s a move, there’s the smoking gun (the knife) and there’s a whole trial conduct showing they did the possible to hide their responsibility.

Louise December 6, 2009 (12:26 pm)

I agree with Gabry. Why doesn’t AK just emphasise what really happened instead of confusing facts and changing her story. Having said that I still think the evidence is weak and she has been tried by media. The jury should NOT be allowed to go home and read public opinion. It’s outrageous. To finish, I’m from the UK and think some of the comments regarding US and Italian characteristics are narrow and untrue for both sides. There are pros and cons to both countries and cultures.

Recksfield December 6, 2009 (4:57 pm)

I feel so sorry for her and her family. My daughter is the same age and just came home for an abroad program. I just don’t understand why she lied about the events of the night on several occasions. I also know that if my daughter returned to her flat or any one of her friends she would not have been out shopping for clothes the next day — she would have been stuck in a friends place crying (and she is a tough kid). Even if she didn’t know the victim or it was an attacker, finding a dead person would have taken the stuffing out of her for a few days. If this poor girl wasn’t involved, why did she lie? Perhaps she was covering footsteps of those she cared about? She needs to come clean, something is wrong and this is not about the trial, it is about the death of a innocent kid. I am sure her parents want justice for everyone. Forget crime scene crap and just tell the truth. Maybe she was not involved but covering for the boyfriend. She needs to say exactly what she knows. She lied before the confession which might be flawed, but she owes the victim (not her “friends”) the truth. We shouldn’t downplay the Italian legal system because it doesn’t play by our rules. They targeted her because of her lies. She may be totally innocent of the crime but linked by her friends. Give it up and tell the truth. Save herself, the victim’s family, her family, etc., but don’t blame another legal system for focusing on her because at the beginning (before the **it hit the fan, she lied). Something just isn’t right about the story she told and as a mom I pray that if she isn’t directly involved, she tells what she actually knows. Even if she was blacked out drunk or high, she needs to say this so the truth can be told.

Dan December 7, 2009 (7:58 am)

Simon, I am American and I have read the evidence.

Option 1) 60% sure – she was involved directly with the murder with Rudy and Rafael. Why would she go to such great lengths to protect Rudy, if she had zero percent responsibility? Or it could have been even more sinister, like something she and Rafael planned. Although the sloppiness of the crime, does not point to a murder plan.

Option 2) 35% sure – she was not involved directly with the murder, but she cleaned up afterwards and tried to throw police off from the real killer Rudy. Immature 19-20 year olds are not the most rational thinkers. Was she drugged up and scared during the time of the murder but not complicit? Started to cover up and then at that point thought she could not go back. I have seen little evidence that contradicts this theory.

Option 3) 5% sure – Italian prosecutors are out to get her because she is a “wild” American girl. (because this is really the only explanation you can come up with to explain the significant amount of evidence against her.)

So is being 60% sure more than a reasonable doubt? That is very close, I definitely would have convicted her for obstruction of justice, or maybe manslaughter, but 1st degree murder, I don’t know.

I’ve read up on both sides pretty significantly. What I am interested in the most, and what is really hard to find, is the character witnesses thoughts on Amanda and whether she was capable of murder. 2 college kids just don’t go around butchering their college friend is just not a phenomenon that happens…ever. Has there ever been a female college roomate that knife slaughtered her female college roomate? No, not that I ever known. Rafael and Amanda had bright futures, and their whole lives ahead of them. It just doesn’t make sense.
On the other hand, you absolutely could not get a better murder suspect than Rudy Guede if you tried, or a better motive. Sexual assaults on woman by desperate men occur thousands of times a year. His DNA was found inside her, he was a drug dealer/drifter kicked out of his home a month before, lost his cell phone a week before. He was arrested at an abandon warehouse a couple nights before with a large knife.

alexis December 7, 2009 (10:14 am)

… if everything else was made up or wrong…ONE FACT alone would be enough proof for the sentence: the Google search for “blood and bleach” on Sollecito’s computer. Does anybody here have an idea hwy ANYBODY in the world would do a google search for “blood and bleach” after an innocent evening watching TV?

The bashing of the italian system/jury/police etc. id ridiculous. In the USA they both would be on death rown for the same facts. The least would be life without parole. In Italy she will probably have a life later and get out of prison younger than 35!

Also, I agree that it is ridiculous that they suffer from such an amnesia after smoking pot.

dman December 7, 2009 (3:22 pm)

Listening to people complain about the “circumstantial” evidence or lack of evidence as a basis for this woman being innocent is absolutely absurd! As a lawyer I can tell you that almost all convictions unless there is a confession or an eye witness, to some extent occur based on circumstantial evidence. They have to be – in most cases it is only the circumstances that suggest the person is guilty, buyond a reasonable doubt. Under rules suggested by the wild rantings of Amanda Knox’s defenders,almost nobody would ever be convicted.

To suggest that the US system would handle this case better is to be completely ignorant of what goes on in our system. If Amanda Knox had darker skin and hair and was being tried in America, none of you armchair lawyers would mind a bit if she was convicted on very compelling circumstance suggested by the evidence, and it happens every day.

This is a woman whose alabi consists of: I was too high to know what happened, but let me lie and pin it on someone else. All you biased Seattle parents writing in, act as if she is some kind of angel. Consider that by her own admission, she is a habitual drug user and lied under oath, so breaking the law does not seem to concern her too much.

Who else possibly had a motive to clean up the scene with bleach? Who else spent two days after her supposed friend was brutally murdered, buying underwear and making out out publically with a guys who had done a search on what? blood and bleach, and who also has lied about where he was at the time of death.

The last recourse of scoundrels is to blame everyone else (Amanda) and then attack the system and the entire Italian country (Amanda’s parents I understand due to parental instinct – anyone else just hasn’t read the facts of this case). This is not the first or the last American that will commit a crime in Italy. The boorish American who are attacking Italy must realize that there is actually justice in this world and sometimes, even millions of dollars and good PR can not break it.

For all you would-be defenders of our great criminal justice system, I assume you were huge fans of the OJ verdidt right? Oh by the way, all that evidence was circumstantial and the glove did not fit!

I wasn’t there, and Amanda may in fact be innocent. But this Italian court got it right. the evidence proves that she is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, not thousands of unreasonable doubts. It is sad that so many lives were ruined by these horrible events, but to now ignorantly spread lies about Italian judges and prosecutors and create a garbage based defense is like spitting on the grave of the only true victim – the poor girl who had her throught slashed.

Yes Seattle, rational American people, with no personal interest whatsoever in the case, have read exactly what you read and have come to the conclusion that Amanda is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Richard December 8, 2009 (1:13 am)

Just because Amanda Knox is pretty & American doesn’t mean she is innocent.
The American press have got to stop the anti- American card because it’s totally counter-productive. In fact, to a European, it’s only inflames the situation.
Also, to critise the Italian legal system is a bit rich. From what I saw, the Italians bent over backwards to help the defence.
No mention appears to have been made in the American press of the victim, Amanda Kercher – is it because she’s not American & doesn’t count!

Mary H. December 8, 2009 (2:07 am)

Alexis, can you provide documentation for this “fact?”

“… if everything else was made up or wrong…ONE FACT alone would be enough proof for the sentence: the Google search for “blood and bleach” on Sollecito’s computer. Does anybody here have an idea hwy ANYBODY in the world would do a google search for “blood and bleach” after an innocent evening watching TV?”

Simon December 8, 2009 (2:39 am)

Oh give it up Mary – They were all found rightfully guilty and that IS a fact. They were found guilty because of the evidence against them and they were found guilty by the people who were chosen to judge them in a court of law. It’s done, it’s over – justice.

dman – pretty much spot on. Good post IMO.

Mary H. December 8, 2009 (2:54 am)

dman, I don’t believe for one minute that you are a lawyer. You don’t have any research skills and you don’t even care if you have any evidence to support your claims. At any rate, I can assure you that you have not read “the facts of the case” and you have not “read exactly” what people who are familiar with the case have read.
You included a lot of folderol in your post, but I’ll keep my rebuttal brief:
Claim: “Consider that by her own admission, she is a habitual drug user and lied under oath…”
Response: Can you provide documentation supporting either of these claims? When did she lie under oath?
Claim: “Who else possibly had a motive to clean up the scene with bleach?”
Response: There was no clean-up of the scene. The victim lay in pools of blood; bedding and clothing were all over the room. A bloody footprint was left on the bathroom floor; broken glass littered the floor of another room. The murderer left many DNA samples, as well as his bloody handprints on the victim’s purse. The tabloids claim over and over that there was a clean-up, but there is no evidence of a clean-up.
Claim: “Who else spent two days after her supposed friend was brutally murdered, buying underwear and making out publically…”
Response: 20 seconds of video on one day and 10 seconds of video on another day does not equal two days. I would think a lawyer would have a lot of questions about what happened in the remaining 47 hours, 59 minutes and 30 seconds of those days.
Claim: “…with a guy who had done a search on what? Blood and bleach, and who also has lied about where he was at the time of death.”
Response: Can you provide documentation of this alleged “blood and bleach search” on Raffaele’s computer? I don’t think this claim was made by the prosecution at trial.
Also, what is the lie you are referring to? Raffaele has always maintained he was home all night. If you say that’s a lie because you think he was actually at the murder, you are begging the question (I’m sure as a lawyer, you know what that means).
Claim: “Amanda is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Response: Alan Dershowitz disagrees with you. And I KNOW he’s a lawyer.

Mary H. December 8, 2009 (2:56 am)

Oh, Simon, if I had known you were here I would have answered you before I answered what’s-his-name.

Thank you for saying my post was good. I agree.

You may wish people would give it up, but then there would be no appeal, and being such a fan of justice, you wouldn’t want that.

Simon December 8, 2009 (3:13 am)

You actually think there has been a miscarridge of justice don’t you? You ignore all the witness’s, the DNA evidence that was allowed in court and as such stands, the changing alibi’s (or lack of one), the lies, etc, and STILL think she is innocent!?!

I don’t want people to give up, I just don’t get why your asking for documentation again. When I asked you for documentation you posted a link to a Seattle website! You actually couldn’t make it up (Amanda probably could though).

They are guilty – and that’s a fact.

Mary H. December 8, 2009 (4:14 am)

“When I asked you for documentation you posted a link to a Seattle website!”
Simon, are you oblivious to the fact that you are blogging on a Seattle website?
I posted a link to the Seattle P-I, one of Seattle’s two major newspapers. It contained an article written by an independent journalist who was reporting on location from the trial in Perugia.
The citation I provided actually was to a quote from Claudia Matteini’s investigative report, which can be found online in several different places. I chose to link to the P-I deliberately because this is the West Seattle Blog.
When you ridiculed me for posting documentation from the P-I, I provided you with two more citations of the exact same quote, from two British news sources. These supported my claim that you were mistaken when you said that Filomena testified that Meredith died in “slow agony.” You never acknowledged your mistake or provided documentation supporting your claim. Now you’re ridiculing me again.
What exactly is it you’re after, Simon?
If it’s to show readers the difference between those who support Amanda and those who are against her, you’re doing a good job.

alexis December 8, 2009 (5:37 am)

“an independent journalist” :-) ?? Where did you find that one? As a journalist i can tell you: not everything written in a newspaper is necessarily a lie. My great grandfather who owned two newspapers, always said that.

Of course I cannot show you a proof about the “blood and bleach” search, but after reading all different kinds of sources and all of the available official documentation, then AK is guilty beyond all reasonable doubt.

Of course everybody can understand the PARENTS. I for one couldn’t accept if my daughter was a killer. It is something that I as a father of a daughter can fully understand. But why the hell are all of you people who have no connection to that family so biased towards italy? YOur death rowns are full of people who were sdentenced on the basis of circumstantial evidence.

Compared to the US the italian justice system is very human and fair. In ten years the still young Amanda will walk out of prison and STILL have the chance even to have her own kids! So what is so terribly unfair? (Meredith will stay dead).

It makes no sense to look at one piece of evidence alone. But if you see the whole thing, it’s really clear who’s responsible. The lies, the changing stories, the defamation of another person (!), the amnesia, the DNA, the knife, the google search for bleach (!), the switched off cell phones, the missing alibi… the proof that S. was not on his computer “all evening” as he said.

How about the witness in the supermarket? How do you explain that AK went to a supermarket EARLY in the morning to buy bleach? She was POSITIVELY identified. How many times do you go out to buy bleach early in the morning?

Too much evidence speaking against them. Every US jury would have found them guilty aswell.

My opinion: If that girl wasn’t an “interesting” female (contrary to many guys i do not find her beautiful) nobody would care. She’s a media star, and you are the media victims.

Don’t you have anything better to do? You could care about people who don’t murder, for example.

Simon December 8, 2009 (7:54 am)

Firstly, of course I am aware this is a seattle blog – not really sure of the relevance though. I do not think that it is unfair to think that using a seattle website in this case simply undermines your credability (along with a few other things I may add).

With regards to you using independant journalists – they are still journo’s. I was not mistaken about Filomena and on the morning of November 2nd 2007 AK did say that to Filomena and this was witnessed by the postal police who were there at the time. Amanda Knox was questioned on this on the 17th November under oath and how she knew and AK burst into tears and did not answer. I provided citation as you requested and wierdly enough this seattle site censored (and I mean censored) my posts and removed them.

I’m not after anything other than a bit of parity. Moreover I am sick to death with the quite frankly racist aspertions about this case.

I again repeat – they are guilty and that’s a fact. No amount of ignoring the massive amounts of evidence will change that and I for one am glad.

Gordon December 8, 2009 (9:08 am)

She’s guilty as hell…..Get used to it,and spare a thought for the poor victim.

dman December 8, 2009 (10:32 am)

Dear Mary,
You are working very hard at discreditting other people’s casual posts based on finding discrepencies. Based on those discrepencies you aggressively seek to discredit the writer. I wonder why it seems that you have no interest in applying the same level of scrutiny to Amanda’s discrepencies. You completely discount that she accused an innocent man of murder and ruined his life. The odd thing is that you are happy to make fantastical statements about why she is innocent, but the problem is that Amanda is unable to tell anyone exactly what she was doing at the time in a credible fashion. She is a liar and that is a fact.

Are you positing that she an her boyfriend have not said that they were smoking pot and having sex at the time this happened? No, you just tactically deconstruct people’s statements and pretend that this blog is a court and try to catch people on technicalities.

What you seem to think is that intelligent people are going to ignore the mountains of strange facts in this case that point to Amanda Knox and focus on your nitpicking. For example, who takes a shower when there is blood an broken glass all over the house, and doesn’t investigate?

This is not court. My point to make, yes as a lawyer (beleive it or not I did attend a highly regarded law school), is that trials are very confusing always, and whoever loses always blames the system.

The Italian legal system being at fault is garbage, so stop focussing on that. She has every right to appeal and she should.

As for Alan Derschowitz I seem to remember him defending O.J. Simpson, Leona Helmsley, Jim Bakker, Mike Tyson and Mike Milken. He is adamant that O.J. was not guilty. Are you in agreement with him on that one also? It would be much more interesting if Dershowitz thought a defendent was guilty! Can you provide documentation of Alan Derschowitz saying a high profile defendent is guilt? (just kidding, but intereting technique no?) I can’t seem to find many of those examples.

You and I were not there in the room. I am perfectly willing to accept that she may not have done this crime. No one but Amanda Knox can ever be certain, but I certainly know that based on the evidence and the circumstances, a rational jury in a fair trial could find her guilty.

You on the other hand are convinced of her innocence and can only see corruption as the culprit.

You are simply unreasonable, and your fanatical position must be discounted.

alexis December 8, 2009 (11:00 am)

…I ‘d like to add that as a European who loves the USA (and the four times in Seattle were my favourites) I am not biased against the USA. I find your lifestyle much more appealing than the one of my own nation (Germany).

But, if there is one thing that can really upset a European, then it’s the juidicial system of the USA. The O.J. Simpson farce is one very good example, minors (or mentally handicapped)on death row are other examples, as is the death penalty itself. From our point of view, Americans have no right to critisize the italian legal system.

But if they decide to, then they should use some common sense and understand; this is not about americans, italians or other nations. This is only about murder. And there’s really enough circumstantial evidence in this case. And that’s the end of the story. It’s also a stupid tale that the “italians hate americans”. It’s simply not true.

Of course it’s a tragedy, if a young person like AK has to spend the best part of her life in prison. On the other hand: she will maybe live another 50 or 60 years after she is paroled in, probably, 10 years. Nobody can say that this is a too high price for murder.

Mary H. December 8, 2009 (2:38 pm)

Simon wrote: “I provided citation as you requested and wierdly enough this seattle site censored (and I mean censored) my posts and removed them.”

From what I was able to gather, you submitted a long excerpt, not a citation. All you have to do is provide a link to your documentation.

Mary H. December 8, 2009 (2:53 pm)

dman, the point of asking for citations is to remind bloggers that it is not okay to just go around making claims about another person’s behavior without offering any supporting evidence. I would think you, as a trained lawyer, would want to provide as much support for your allegations as you can in order to strengthen your arguments.
“People’s casual posts” and those of tabloid journalists have put two innocent people in prison. To them and their supporters, there is nothing casual about it.
You wrote, “You completely discount that she accused an innocent man of murder and ruined his life.”
I didn’t even mention it. Does not mentioning something automatically mean it’s discounted?
You wrote: “Are you positing that she and her boyfriend have not said that they were smoking pot and having sex at the time this happened?”
I didn’t mention this, either, so I’m not sure why you’re bringing it up. Is it to support your claim that Amanda admitted to being a “habitual drug user?”
You wrote: “The Italian legal system being at fault is garbage, so stop focussing on that.”
This is another subject I didn’t mention in my post.
Are you sure you’re responding to what I wrote? Or are you just trying to accuse me of saying things I didn’t say, in the same way you are accusing Amanda of doing things she didn’t do?

Mary H. December 8, 2009 (4:24 pm)

dman, I forgot to answer this question you asked: “For example, who takes a shower when there is blood and broken glass all over the house, and doesn’t investigate?”
When Amanda took her shower, she noticed something that would turn out to be blood on the floor of the bathroom. If you can find any photos of the bloody footprint on the bathmat, you will see why her suspicions weren’t raised by it; it’s almost invisible.
When you go into your house and notice something is different, your mind don’t immediately jump to the conclusion a murder has been committed, especially when you live in a small, safe romantic town in the countryside of Italy.
Amanda became more alarmed when she found the feces in the toilet of the other bathroom in the house; that was when she began to investigate. She got Raffaele and together they discovered the broken window. “Blood all over the place” was not found until the police broke down the door to Meredith’s bedroom.

dman December 8, 2009 (6:30 pm)

Mary,
Apparently, I am ascribing to you an ability to infer meaning that you do not possess.

I will be more simplisitic: Just because in your mind you are finding fault with other’s statements, does not mean that your unrelated statements are correct.

Let me try to be very responsive:
You brought up Alan Dershowitz, my response was meant to suggest that Alan Dershowitz is actually quite biased in favor of defendants in these situations. You conveniently have not responded regarding your view on OJ. Are you with Alan or not? Is he the final word on AK becasue he is a famous lawyer? And by the way there are other lawyers on tv that agree with the verdict, but I am not taking there word for it either.

You did not respond to a line of questioning by the judge which specifically addressed AK taking a shower and not alerting anyone when she saw blood and her house door was open. Normal innocent people call the police when there is blood and their house has been broken into.

Unfortunately, your behavior is consistent with that of a reactionary defender. You cannot explain these issues, so you ignore them and try to bully others off of the scent of the truth by invoking irrelevant circumstances, like Alan Dershowitz’ opinion.

It is precisely this kind of low brow bullying that biases people away from AK’s defenders. The simple fact is that this woman was given every opportunity to tell her side of the story in a coherent way that did not contradict her alibi provider. It never happened. The jury was not out to get her – quite the contrary, they have been quoted now as upset and biased away from beleiving that a young pretty girl could do this.

But in the end they weighed the evidence and convicted her. If she is innocent, I hope she can explain herself coherently on appeal and retrial.

Finally on the issue of her character. AK’s defender’s invoke here friends’ opinions only when they are supportive. They don’t address the other strange aspects of her behaviour that are well documented. By insisting that she is an angel you lose 100% credibility when strange fantasies on her facebook page are found or other habits are unearthed that don”t need to be repeated.

Don’t you have even a shred of concern that she may be guiltay and you may be wrong? If you were a fair individual, you would.

dman December 8, 2009 (6:48 pm)

Mary, I missed your last post. You said: “especially when you live in a small, safe romantic town in the countryside of Italy”.

Apparently this apartment was relatively remote by the tracks and another supporter of AK (Candace Dempsey) tells us that in fact it wasn’t so safe at all see below:

http://blog.seattlepi.com/dempsey/archives/129925.asp

As a woman, the first thing I notice about the house of horrors is its isolation. No parent would choose it for a daughter. It stands by itself on car-busy Via Pergola, outside the stone walls that encircle the city. Built over a green ravine, it’s also adjacent to a car park. Drug dealers hang out on the nearby basketball court, as did Rudy Guede.

“There were always junkies and drug dealers around, especially in the garden and in our car park,” one housemate told the Daily Telegraph. “We would come out and find syringes everywhere. I never felt safe there.”

I wonder if this in anyway makes you think twice?

Mary H. December 8, 2009 (8:05 pm)

dman,

”Apparently, I am ascribing to you an ability to infer meaning that you do not possess. I will be more simplisitic:”
— Now, what was that you were saying about bullying?
“Just because in your mind you are finding fault with other’s statements, does not mean that your unrelated statements are correct.”
— I remember asking for citations to support allegations. I do find fault with anything that isn’t true.
“You brought up Alan Dershowitz, my response was meant to suggest that Alan Dershowitz is actually quite biased in favor of defendants in these situations.
—To be honest, I don’t know anything about Alan Dershowitz, except that he is an endowed professor at Harvard. My point was not to pledge my undying loyalty to Alan Dershowitz, it was to suggest that lawyers with actual qualifications agree that Amanda is innocent. I chose Dershowitz because his name is famous enough for most people to recognize. Your delight with discussing at length this very small detail of my post suggests you prefer avoiding the more important topics.
“You did not respond to a line of questioning by the judge which specifically addressed AK taking a shower and not alerting anyone when she saw blood and her house door was open. Normal innocent people call the police when there is blood and their house has been broken into.”
— Are you sure you don’t want to back up a little on that one?
“You cannot explain these issues, so you ignore them…”
You still haven’t provided any documentation for the libelous claims you made in your first post. They’ve all gone by the wayside as you continue to change the subject, distract and bait instead of focusing on the actual questions surrounding the allegations.
“…The simple fact is that this woman was given every opportunity to tell her side of the story in a coherent way that did not contradict her alibi provider…”
— “Her alibi provider?” I thought she was her alibi provider. Raffaele was much more inconsistent than Amanda. Amanda can’t prove a negative — that she wasn’t at the crime scene. It is the job of the prosecution to prove she was there. They did not do that.
“…strange fantasies on her facebook page are found or other habits are unearthed that don”t need to be repeated.”
— Here you are again with your 30 seconds of evidence. Doesn’t it occur to you that there may be 10.000 times more information about Amanda than what the tabloids promoted? They deliberately chose to display only the most negative aspects of her life for mass consumption by the public.
“Don’t you have even a shred of concern that she may be guilty and you may be wrong? If you were a fair individual, you would.”
—- I did think she was guilty when I read the first newspaper article about her in the Seattle Times on November 7, 2007. Since I am not a blind, unquestioning consumer of information, however, I looked into the subject and have been following the arguments and information provided by both sides very closely since then. I expect the same from other people who voice opinions on this extremely serious subject.

Mary H. December 8, 2009 (8:24 pm)

alexis wrote: “Of course I cannot show you a proof about the “blood and bleach” search, but after reading all different kinds of sources and all of the available official documentation, then AK is guilty beyond all reasonable doubt.'”
— How do you know what you have read is true? What you wrote about the blood and bleach isn’t true. If you really have looked at all the available documentation, you would know that. Why do you think it’s okay to say Raffaele searched “blood and bleach” on his computer when you have no proof that he did?
“It makes no sense to look at one piece of evidence alone. But if you see the whole thing, it’s really clear who’s responsible. The lies, the changing stories, the defamation of another person (!), the amnesia, the DNA, the knife, the google search for bleach (!), the switched off cell phones, the missing alibi… the proof that S. was not on his computer “all evening” as he said.”
— Again, you list a number of charges that you and everyone else cannot document because most of them are not true. You are relying on a “big picture” impression from the news media.
— I would think that you, as the father of a daughter, would find it highly objectionable that strangers could write that your daughter did this, this, and this, and then when their accusations are challenged, they say, “Of course I cannot show you proof, but she did it and she needs to go to jail.”

alexis December 8, 2009 (10:25 pm)

mary,
you sound as if you hade been there and possess a higher degree of knowldege about all the facts that were presented before that court. Of _course_ i cannot prove that every single accusations is right, and of course I have my knowledge from the media. What i was saying that even if one, two or three of the facts were wrong there would still be enough reason for a solid conviction. All of us (you included) have all of our information from the media. The difference between us is how we use the media and how we interprete it.
I for one, as a long time journalist, read many different sources and compare them with official statements and documents before I draw a conclusion. And I am open to the result. And beeing open in this case means that she is guilty.

alexis December 8, 2009 (10:33 pm)

mary wrote:
>>> I would think that you, as the father of a daughter, would find it highly objectionable that strangers could write that your daughter did this, this, and this, and then when their accusations are challenged, they say, “Of course I cannot show you proof, but she did it and she needs to go to jail.”

That’s a highly manipulative way of turning around what I said. What you wriet is simply not the case. There is proof, and there is a lot of _circumstantial evidence_, used by all courts, all over the world, every day. As I said: a high percentage of US death row inmates will be killed just because of circumstantial evidence. Let

You are trying to make up some kind of conspiracy against an innicent girl here. But the facts, as we know them, all speak against AK. There is no conspiracy, and there was no bias against AK. The media circus has nothing to do with the trial.

Mary H. December 9, 2009 (12:14 am)

I’m not trying to manipulate you, Alexis. I just do not understand why so many people on these blogs think it’s okay to make accusations without supporting documentation. It’s downright un-American! ;)
I don’t get all my information from the media. Here is one document that, while it was printed in the press, is not directly from the media; it is the investigative report of Claudia Matteini.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article2843350.ece
This is the document that was used to justify holding Amanda and Raffaele in custody for up to a year. It is also the document that set the tone for the rest of the trial.
After reading this document, I realized that this judge was prejudiced, biased, given to believing in fantasies and apt to accuse people based on presumption of guilt without supporting evidence.
Why should I respect her opinion and the opinions of her allies?
In this document, the judge says it is possible reconstruct and describe what happened the night of the murder, even though this description is completely a product of imagination, either hers or Giuliano Mignini’s.
In the report, she states that Patrick Lumumba committed the murder. She states the murder weapon was Raffaele’s flick knife. She ascribes motives to the suspects that she could have no knowledge of.
The report was published three days after the suspects were arrested and before any DNA was collected from the scene of the crime. Much of the information in this report was carried forward into the public domain as if it were all true, even after much of it was proven false.
Why would anyone trust that anything the prosecution came up with after this report would be any more reliable?

alexis December 9, 2009 (1:19 am)

-Mary H.,
sorry, but I have no idea what you are talking about. of course this report of judge Matteimni was wrong. We know that now. But maybe you should remember that it was KNOX herself who implicated Lumumba into the murder!
Without anybody telling her to do so, AK wrote a 5 page (!) detailled account of what had happened later and how she experienced L. killing MK. L´.’s life was ruined. He was arrested in front of his wife and kids, he lost his bar too. I at least know no person who would do that to an innocent man.
What you are trying to say here is that since the prosecution made the fault believing that L. was the killer in the beginning they have no right in learning more about the murder and convicting AK based on the overwhelming circumstantial evidence.
But the evidence is there, and some of it cannot be discredited by anybody.
The official court documents, contain, among other facts a DNA sample of AK found in a spot of MK’s blood – and some more evidence that cannot be argued away like you are constantly trying to do. It is the whole body of evidence that counts in this case, and most of it speaks against AK and RS. The most damaging were surely AK’s lies and the implication of L. And, if you use common sense, then you know that no amount of pot can be responsible for the kind of amnesia AK and RS suffered from.
I am pretty sure she might have gotten away with the murder if she had not made some stupid mistakes. She “should” not have accused L. and she simply should have kept her mouth shut for a while. But I am glad she wasn’t that smart.
In my opinion only the false accusation which ruined L’s life would be worth 5 years in prison.
If we used your strategy for explaining the world then we could come to interesting conclusions. One example: Before WW II started, a big part of the world, even american presidents, spoke highly of Adolf Hitler and the Nazi regime in Germany. Charles Lindbergh, the american hero, praised the Nazis for their politics, and he is only ONE exmaple of thousands.(He changed his opinion later).
How come the Allies had the right to hang the surviving Nazis after the Nuremberg trials after the war? Because they have later found out the truth about Nazi Germany?
Or, if you can better relate to this: Have you ever found out that you were wrong and changed your mind? Does a murderer have to be released from prison only because the original scenario of the prosecution,which was based on AK’s false accusation of L., was wrong?
And, after all. Not Claudia M. found AK/RS guilty. It was the jury! And the jury consisted of human beiings against whom you should show some respect. Or do you claim to be a better person than these people? Because you are american and they are “biased” italians? Or what?
You should realize that the most biased person in this discussion here is you. The rest of us simply respected the common sense of the jury, based on very strong ciirc. evidence.

Mary H. December 9, 2009 (4:11 pm)

Anyone who believes Amanda Knox is responsible for the wrongful arrest of Patrick Lumumba has an incomplete understanding of the facts of this case.

alexis December 10, 2009 (12:06 am)

haha! That’s about the silliest statement you made in this whole string. as if you had no idea about the whole case. l’m leaving here, bye.

Mary H. December 10, 2009 (1:10 am)

Thank you for the citation, dman. I read the quote and the context in which it was made. I thought twice, but I haven’t changed my mind.
I still believe there is a low crime rate in Perugia, although I would have to look up the statistics to back that up.
I remember reading, during the first year of the case, about drug activity in Perugia. I read interviews with some of the college-age men from the town who said that possessing drugs is extremely common there; in fact, the girls don’t have to get their drugs from dealers because they just get them from their boyfriends. I also got the feeling that Perugia’s drug dealers were not considered dangerous; I could be wrong.
At any rate, Amanda did say that when she found things amiss in the cottage, she did not immediately assume a murder had taken place; who would?
Meredith knew everyone in the house would be gone that night. She knew everyone was out of town except Amanda, and that Amanda was staying at Raffaele’s, as she had done for the past several nights. If Meredith had felt unsafe, she probably would have stayed at the home of the friends where she had dinner.

dman December 10, 2009 (7:14 pm)

Damn Mary, you took me seriously again. Of course I know that nothing can change your mind. But its clear now that you are very forgiving with your own irrlevent mistakes, but quite willing to dimiss others for theirs.

Now that she is no longer concidered innocent, maybe she will step up and tell the truth about what happened that night.

It does surprise me that you think that your one-side drivel will change anybody’s mind. You’ve done a good job of clearing the blog though. Now talk amongst yourself…

Mary H. December 10, 2009 (11:04 pm)

I’m curious about what you think my “irrelevant mistakes” are, and also about why you think you should have come across as someone who did not intend to be taken seriously.
If I never get the answers, though, I’ll live. I take it as a great compliment when people quit talking to me. It means they got nothin’.
I know I can’t change the minds of people whose minds are closed. Now that I am experienced at blogging with them, though (a year later), it is easy for me to answer the questions of people whose minds are still open.
I know so much about this case from having to research everybody’s false claims — it’s been a great learning experience.