@ Rotary Club of West Seattle, Mike Heavey defends Amanda Knox

(The table was only empty for presentation logistics – all the others were full)
By Tracy Record
West Seattle Blog editor

“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”

With that quote from Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., longtime West Seattleite Mike Heavey opened his presentation this afternoon to the Rotary Club of West Seattle‘s weekly lunch meeting at Salty’s on Alki. The topic: The much-discussed case of Amanda Knox – “a 20-year-old kid, from the University of Washington, from West Seattle” at the time of her arrest in Italy in 2007, which as you almost certainly have heard led to a murder conviction which is now being appealed (with proceedings continuing next Saturday).

Heavey was careful to state — repeatedly — that he was speaking as a private citizen, not in any capacity related to his job as a King County Superior Court judge. (Because of that, we will omit his title during this story; otherwise, we usually include such titles in references throughout stories).

He is also a former state legislator and has been an outspoken advocate for Knox and her family, including her father Curt Knox of Arbor Heights, who attended the Rotary luncheon (photo at right) and listened to Heavey’s presentation from a seat close to the podium, but did not join him in speaking.

Before specifically making his case for Knox’s innocence to the Rotarians, he reviewed great moments in the history of justice as he began – from the Biblical tale of Solomon’s choice, to the U.S. Supreme Court’s one-vote ruling in the Gore vs. Bush election of 2000, and then focused on the American justice system providing the right to trial by jury.

When he reached the point where he spoke specifically about what he called a “trumped-up case” — the first slide in his PowerPoint presentation read “Amanda Knox: Wrongfully convicted of murder, December 5, 2009.” He noted that she has “spent four Christmases in prison.” But he did not give short shrift to the victim; the second slide read, “A Tragedy in Perugia, Meredith Kercher, Murdered November 1, 2007.”

Explaining why he believes Knox is innocent, he reviewed key points in the investigation: “A flawed response,” Heavey pronounced it, surmising “they had a lot of pressure to solve the crime.”

He said Knox was subjected to all-night interrogation he termed “very abusive,” including sleep deprivation – an interrogation he says lasted more than 40 hours. He quoted retired FBI agent Steve Moore, who has become active in the case, as saying, “give me 3 or 4 hours, I can get someone to say whatever I want them to say.”

So who did kill Meredith Kercher? Heavey described what he called “overwhelming evidence” against Rudy Guede, “who admits to being at the scene of the murder” and was convicted in 2008. Heavey detailed the evidence against him, including that his DNA “(was) inside the victim” and “his bloody shoeprints on the floor” (“Why didn’t he call the police?” Heavey wondered.) He noted that Guede’s sentence is now 16 years, shorter than Knox’s. He contends the evidence shows Guede acted alone, breaking into the apartment before he then … “robbed, sexually assaulted and killed (Meredith Kercher), and then he fled the scene” and before long, even fled the country.

But “the authorities didn’t want to look like fools” so they dug in on another theory, Heavey argued, also saying the evidence was contaminated, that there were “no witnesses of any repute” and that, for various reasons including its size and the DNA that was and was not found on it, that the large knife alleged to have been used to kill Kercher was “not plausible as the murder weapon.”

So how did Knox wind up wrongfully convicted? For one, according to Heavey, pre-trial demonization – he says she gained so much fame in Italy, via media lies that led “99 percent of he people in Italy” to think “she was the devil incarnate.” On the other hand, he brought up prosecutor Giuliano Mignini, describing him as “a convicted criminal” who was on trial at the time this all broke, eventually convicted of prosecutorial misconduct, calling him a “Satanic cult theorist.” He is part of the Knox prosecution, as she appeals, while appealing his own case, Heavey noted, also saying the Italian justice system did not follow some of the key tenets of the American system – such as screening and sequestering jurors, or having prosecutors refrain from “releasing any information that would heighten the public condemnation of the accused” – even when it’s “true statements.” As a result, he said of the jurors who found Knox guilty of murder: “Their hearts were hardened against Amanda Knox before she ever went to trial. … The jurors were unwitting tools … of arbitrary action of the government.”

But Heavey also said that as Knox’s appeal proceeds, there’s good news for her: “Public opinion (in Italy) is changing.” He showed a cover of OGGI magazine saying “Innocent.” Then, he quoted Americans who have come out in her defense, such as retired FBI agents John Douglas and Steve Moore saying they’re convinced she’s innocent, as well as investigator Paul Ciolino, and retired US federal attorney S. Michael Scadron.

“Politicians don’t take sides in criminal cases,” Heavey added, but noted that U.S. Sen. Maria Cantwell came out in support of Knox’s innocence.

“You don’t have to believe me,” summarized Heavey. “Anyone who looks at this (evidence), comes to the same conclusion.” Listing Knox-supporter websites such as injusticeinperugia.org and friendsofamanda.org (which is also collecting donations for her defense fund), he said, “When you look at the picures of these kids [Knox and ex-boyfriend Raffaelle Sollecito] on these websites, you say, this is impossible.”

He says 99 percent of the people he sees as a judge are high-school dropouts, often with drugs issues. Not applicable to Amanda Knox, an honor-roll student at UW, he said.

He closed his PowerPoint with a photo of Amanda Knox playing a guitar, with a toddler looking at the camera: “You would be proud to call her your daughter. … I invite you all to get more involved, get more informed, tell your friends and family there’s an injustice going on.”

He had spoken for about 45 minutes, over the allotted time, but the room seemed riveted. “Can a federal prosecutor do anything?” he was asked. Heavey suggested that he thinks the U.S. State Department is “doing a lot” behind the scenes. Other questions had to do with the status of the case – which, again, goes to a hearing in the ongoing appeal this Saturday.

As is the case with speakers, Rotary leaders presented Heavey with a certificate saying 300 pounds of food had been donated to Rotary First Harvest in his honor. They have historically had a wide range of guest speakers, and most of their weekly lunch meetings (noon Tuesdays at Salty’s) are open to the public; there’s more information at westseattlerotary.org.

58 Replies to "@ Rotary Club of West Seattle, Mike Heavey defends Amanda Knox"

  • CCW January 18, 2011 (3:26 pm)

    I don’t know if she did it or not, but it seems pretty clear that, if tried fairly and according to American standards of proof (i.e. beyond a reasonable doubt), she would not be convicted.

  • Dave January 18, 2011 (3:27 pm)

    “Anyone who looks at this (evidence) comes to the same conclusion.”. Really? I must not be anyone because my conclusion was that they are both guilty and tried to put the blame on a black guy.

  • Proof100 January 18, 2011 (3:33 pm)

    Dave – What are you basing that on?


  • Michaelsmth January 18, 2011 (3:41 pm)

    Then Dave, you didn’t look hard enough. Judge Heavey is one an army of experts who believe this case never should have come to trial.

    It has been demonstrated over and over that there simply is no real evidence – the entire case being based on smoke and mirrors.

    The appeals court will acquit, and end this travesty of justice.

  • Lex January 18, 2011 (3:41 pm)

    I hope gongsniper wasn’t stalking this event. Some scary people who follow this case.

  • Harry Rag January 18, 2011 (3:52 pm)

    The evidence against Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito is overwhelming. They gave completely different accounts of where they were, who they were with and what they were doing on the night of the murder. Neither Knox nor Sollecito have credible alibis despite three attempts each. All the other people who were questioned had one credible alibi that could be verified. Innocent people don’t give multiple conflicting alibis and lie repeatedly to the police.

    The DNA didn’t miraculously deposit itself in the most incriminating of places.

    An abundant amount of Raffaele Sollecito’s DNA was found on Meredith’s bra clasp. His DNA was identified by two separate DNA tests. Of the 17 loci tested in the sample, Sollecito’s profile matched 17 out of 17.

    According to Sollecito’s forensic expert, Professor Vinci, Knox’s DNA was on Meredith’s bra.

    Amanda Knox’s DNA was found on the handle of the double DNA knife and a number of independent forensic experts – Dr. Patrizia Stefanoni, Dr. Renato Biondo and Professor Francesca Torricelli – categorically stated that Meredith’s DNA was on the blade. Sollecito knew that Meredith’s DNA was on the blade which is why he twice lied about accidentally pricking her hand whilst cooking.

    There were five instances of Knox’s DNA mixed with Meredith’s blood in three different locations in the cottage.

    Knox tracked Meredith’s blood into the bathroom, the hallway, her room and Filomena’s room, where the break-in was staged. Knox’s DNA and Meredith’s blood was found mixed together in Filomena’s room, in a bare bloody footprint in the hallway and in three places in the bathroom.

    Rudy Guede’s bloody footprints led straight out of Meredith’s room and out of the house. This means that he didn’t stage the break-in in Filomena’s room or go into the blood-spattered bathroom after Meredith had been stabbed.

    The bloody footprint on the blue bathmat in the bathroom matched the precise characteristics of Sollecito’s foot, but couldn’t possibly belong to Guede. Knox’s and Sollecito’s bare bloody footprints were revealed by luminol in the hallway.

    It’s not a coincidence that the three people – Knox, Sollecito and Guede – who kept telling the police a pack of lies are all implicated by the DNA and forensic evidence.

    Amanda Knox voluntarily admitted that she was involved in Meredith’s murder in her handwritten note to the police on 6 November 2007. After she was informed that Sollecito was no longer providing her with an alibi, she stated on at least four separate occasions that she was at the cottage when Meredith was killed. At the trial, Sollecito refused to corroborate Knox’s alibi that she was at his apartment.

    Knox accused an innocent man, Diya Lumumba, of murdering Meredith despite the fact she knew he was completely innocent. She didn’t recant her false and malicious allegation against Lumumba the whole time he was in prison. She admitted that it was her fault that Lumumba was in prison in an intercepted conversation with her mother on 10 November 2007.

  • Judy Brooks January 18, 2011 (3:54 pm)

    I regularly see comments by Dave and a few uninformed others who keep up the “black” issue. Amanda was told that there were negro hair on the victim by the police. Amanda responded that the only person she knew in Italy that was black was her boss. The police then arrested Patrick Lumbata and convicted him in the press until he proved he was working, with witnesses. If he had been home, the police would still have him in prison. After 40 hours of grilling Dave, you would have confessed to the murder. Get off your high horse and get a clue.

  • Harry Rag January 18, 2011 (4:09 pm)


    Amanda Knox was questioned for approximately 2 hours and 45 minutes on 5 November 2007.

  • throughthelens January 18, 2011 (4:17 pm)

    I don’t know whether or not she did it but she has always seemed ‘off’ to me. I realize this feeling is not evidence but if she didn’t do it, there are some serious mental health issues with that girl. She never responded appropriately (as in, with any degree or either shock or compassion) when the whole thing went down. She was off lingerie shopping with the boyfriend AFTER hearing the news. There are multiple photos of her smiling and laughing and just being all sexy in the lingerie store. I don’t think a warm hearted non murderous person could act like that. That is just my own gut feeling and I stand by it. I find her creepy.

  • nwryan January 18, 2011 (4:30 pm)

    Dont base your judgements on American standards of proof. We all have such short memories. We play by the most money means the best chance of acquittal.

    I am sad for her family but none of us were in that courtroom and we just don’t know. It’s easy to buy into national cable news…or opinion made to look like news…

    Let due process and the appeal take its course

  • Gonzo36 January 18, 2011 (4:40 pm)


    Amanda Knox was questioned repeatedly by police over many days. On November 5th she was questioned by police from around 11:00pm until 5:45 when she signed her ‘confession’ The Italian Supreme Court ruled the interrogation had violated her human rights. Amanda had been questioned for over 40 hours over many days and had made comments about how stressful the questioning was. A wiretap report says, “Even at Raffaele’s, Amanda says she finds no rest. Calls come in from police, from journalist”.

  • Gonzo36 January 18, 2011 (4:54 pm)


    Some of what you wrote isnt quite true in your first post.

    1) Amanda has given two stories of where she was on the night of the murder. The first was she was with Solliceto all night (with some more detail). It wasnt until the police had told her Solliceto said she wasnt there did come up with a different story. She often said during this story that it seemed ‘like a dream’. Then she went right back to the first story.

    2)The bra clasp had been kicked around the room for 45 days before it was retrieved. It also had a few other ‘unknown’ person’s DNA on it.

    3)The DNA test used to identify Meredith’s DNA on the knife was a test that should have never been used with that small of a sample. The machine that was used even said the sample readings were too low, but she used it anyway.

    4)The footprints you often refer to in your post were never tested to see what chemical caused the luminol to react. Therefore one cannot assume the footprints were ‘bloody’. They could have just as easily come from cleaning liquid. Also, they were never proven to be either Solliceto’s or Knox’s footprints.

    5)There was never proof the break-in was staged. It could have been how Guede got into the apartment. The room was compromised before the police even got there and items had been removed from the room.

    6)Regarding the false accusation: Knox only accused him after the police suggested him to her due to a text between the two that seemed to the police like it said she was going to meet him later. Actually she was just saying good-bye in American slang, “see you later”. In addition there are many instances where innocent people have not only falsely confessed, they have also accused other innocent people. You can google ‘false confession wiki’ for a good summary.

    Hope this clears things up. Thanks!

  • Cclarue January 18, 2011 (5:04 pm)

    None of us here know what really happened or who did it. I can not see any motive for Amanda to kill her roomate.What would she gain ? Picture yourself a semi privleged college student studying abroad….. It doesn’t even make any sense for her to do something like that. If she was convicted of gossiping okay I can buy that drunk driving ok that too but outright gruesome murder with her bare hands ? I don’t buy it. With any angle or spin you can put on it .

  • OKC January 18, 2011 (5:13 pm)

    It seemed like a dream? drugs maybe?,
    bra-clasp kicked around?, police were playing football at crime scene? where did Soliceto DNA come from, how can such minute DNA fly around a contaminated other items.

  • Proof100 January 18, 2011 (5:16 pm)

    The evidence against ‘Harry Rag’ is overwhelming.

  • third wheel January 18, 2011 (5:18 pm)

    It is commendable indeed for Mike Heavy to continue publicly to support this cause for the over turning of a blatantly unjust conviction.

    No matter where you go (on the internet with this subject) some people post comments that are cut and pasting of the same half truths (note: half truths = lies). As if by repeating it often enough someone will believe them.

    I agree with Lex: there are some scary people who follow this case.

  • Alki Resident January 18, 2011 (5:20 pm)

    @Throughthelens-After knowing Amanda and her family for many years,I can tell you she nor her family are “off”or have mental health issues.She is a place where thre is a language barrier.She’s very young and scared,not being in her own country and having all this media and people blowing things out of proportion on a daily basis.They’ve now just got one more person off the case,a drunk who thought he saw something he didn’t.Amanda has been through alot during this time.Who knows what all is going on since the media doesnt report everything plus things get misconstrewed as well.But,the people here that know Amanda,know she didn’t do this nor was ever capable.One day soon,you will see a large crowd cheering for Amanda when she finally flies home to her entire family and friends, a free woman and cleared of all charges and of stable mind.Hope you will join in the celebration.

  • throughthelens January 18, 2011 (6:08 pm)


    I appreciate your thoughtful response. I just have never understood why she would have been acting like that. I don’t mean I don’t want to get it, because I do. I’d much rather come down on the side of her and her family. It’s just that some of her behavior concerns me. But I also get how the media blew the whole thing out of proportion and I do thing the case has been skewed from the beginning.

    I always interpreted her behavior directly after the murder as “dreamlike”. She did not seem concerned with the reality of the situation in those photos. I do understand that people do odd things in times of stress, but i do find that bizarre. And in terms of the case, it fits for me that there were some issues with drugs and sex games going on.

    I do hope she is found innocent after getting a fair shake on appeal.

  • furor scribendi January 18, 2011 (6:11 pm)

    It is commendable that people stand with the Knox family, and it cannot be easy for them, but it is pathetic, and very sad, that the facts of Meredith Kercher’s death get such short shrift – she is the real victim, not Amanda Knox. Just like the OJ criminal verdict, some people will never be satisfied with the outcome. On the other hand, I have lost all respect for Mike Heavey on his grandstanding and politicizing on this issue.

  • JoB January 18, 2011 (6:26 pm)

    Amanda Cox may be a US citizen
    but her appeal is being tried in the Italians courts
    where they will look at actual evidence
    not second hand reports of evidence.
    and make a determination.

    That’s all any of us can ask for.

  • Mickey January 18, 2011 (6:28 pm)

    I hope and pray that this nightmare will soon be over and the two kids, Amanda and Raffaele, are freed from captivity. Thank you Judge Heavey for speaking out about this gross miscarriage of justice.

    Readers can ignore the long spam posts by “Harry Rag” above. He posts the same made up nonsense all over the Internet, as part of the vicious hate campaign against Amanda and Raffaele. Rag is some sort of paid or obsessive compulsive disinformation troll.

  • charlabob January 18, 2011 (7:09 pm)

    So “speaking as a private citizen” makes it OK for justices to speak out on cases? I don’t think so. Probably, since it’s an Italian case, the rules are different — but I don’t see much difference in Heavey’s propagating his opinions from Scalia and Roberts taking on right wing speaking engagements.

  • NotMe January 18, 2011 (9:56 pm)

    Not a single one of you were in Italy during the trial to make any sort of assessment. The verdict came from people that were in the court room. Just because some local yocal comes out with an opinion does not make it any sort of “fact.”
    Whatever comes out from this appeal will be pretty much final. There won’t be any do-overs and this is all going to come to an end… thank God.

  • Bill January 19, 2011 (3:24 am)

    The usual cherry-picking of a few pieces of evidence which may muddy the waters while ignoring a wealth of other evidence showing their guilt, typical of the Knox PR machine. Also outright lies, such as a ‘very abusive’ ‘all night” interrogation. Even her own defence never suggested it was abusive.

    Impartial readers, I suggest reading the judge’s report in full before drawing your own conclusions. For one thing, it makes it crystal clear that more than one person was involved. Also that the break-in was staged, and not by Guede.

  • Sheila Hagan January 19, 2011 (3:37 am)

    What’s disturbing is the way Heavey mixes up admiration for an all-American girl (good school, nice family) with a judicial process, and then comes out with the usual banal statements including that there was ‘no evidence’, and that the Italians were ‘desperate’ for a conviction…Well actually there was patently enough evidence to incarcerate Knox pretty much immediately, and to involve her in a year-long trial (without even mentioning that it ended with a 26 year conviction for murder and torture). And why would the Italians be ‘desperate’ to convict a couple of college kids if they had Guede already?..The truth is that there is a mass of evidence against Knox. If Heavey wanted to be taken seriously he would suggest that there was ‘reasonable doubt’ about the case, and argue accordingly..He didn’t. He just ignores all the facts (ones which are presented by other posters on this thread), and makes up others. Saying that the US State Dept. are ‘secretly’ working for Knox is just pathetic. It’s as desperate as lying about all those Italian police officers intimidating Knox. They didn’t – that’s why they’re suing her for libel (Sollecito at least didn’t try to blame his lies on police brutality, because he knew this lame cliche would be rejected by everyone in court)..Heavey should understand that those who commit murders in Italy are tried by Italian judges and juries – not PR agencies, biased US media interests, and infatuated old American men who are trying to make a name for themselves.

  • Guiseppe Caldo January 19, 2011 (3:56 am)

    Heavey says that ’99 per cent of Italians’ were persuaded by the media that Knox was ‘devil incarnate.’..And he’s the one attacking the tabloids!!!.. As it happens, most Italians view Knox for what she is – a photogenic US college girl who stepped out of line because of drugs, alcohol, promiscuity and lack of parental control..Forgetting all Heavey’s emotional pap about Christmas etc, his claim that the jurors were ‘unwitting tools’ of ‘the government’ is absolutely cretinous. Italy is a European Union democracy, old man – does he know anything about the world outside Seattle? His incredibly biased, parochial and generally factless opinion of this case is plain embarrassing.

  • Helena January 19, 2011 (5:43 am)

    The problem for people like Heavey is he cannot see the contradiction in his argument. The forensic evidence cannot be correct for Guede yet contaminated for Knox/Sollecito when the results came from the same lab. Over 30 judges have looked at the evidence and found Knox to have a case to answer. Surely if “all you need to do is consider the evidence” then one of these judges would have said something or given her bail. Italy keeps being portrayed as some banana republic yet it was a founding member of the EU!

  • Nigel Rees January 19, 2011 (6:04 am)

    The worst are those who go on about a ‘hate campaign’ against Knox and Solecitto. Why would people hate them? On the surface, they’re good-looking, wholesome and fine representatives of Italy and the US. It’s just ridiculous to say that a very public judicial process (one which Knox thanked the Italians for, remember) is based on ‘hate’…The only reason objective people think negatively of the three killers is because they killed someone. Heavey is not objective – he’s a classic entitled old fella who has lived in the same town all his life and can’t believe that someone with a similar background to him could commit a crime. The trouble is that Knox is in prison and aggressive, anti-Italian speeches which are posted on the internet aren’t going to help her at all….Oh, and let’s not forget that most of the ‘experts’ mentioned have been completely discredited. Steve Moore is a sacked campus cop who used to fly planes for the FBI, for example. He’s never even been to Italy.

  • TMJ January 19, 2011 (6:41 am)

    First off, we should never hate the man or a women and 2nd know matter of what he or she said. Also I like to point that there was small type of dna and it makes no sense of Amanda or Raffittle involded of this crime wave case. I am going to stand by for the support of Amanda & Raffittle that will get out of jail, of a crime they didn’t committed!!!

  • Giselle January 19, 2011 (7:29 am)

    No one can “know” who killed Meredith Kercher, other than those who killed her. But the evidence proves beyond a reasonable doubt that not only Knox, but Sollecito and Guede were parties to this murder.
    Those who dispute this case – are either Knox’s defense or those who have no access to the evidence and thousands of pages of evidence. This second group also known as FOA are prepared to smear every good name of Italian scientists and investigators that have provided evidence based on their expertise indicating that Knox is guilty or to propose a string of excuses for Knox’s behavior, Knox’s confession and all the evidence against her.

    Evil resides in the critical gaze which perceives evil all around….

  • Heather January 19, 2011 (7:32 am)

    Thank you to Judge Heavey for speaking out about this injustice and spreading the word. With any luck, in a few short months, Amanda and Raffaele will be back where they belong – with family and friends.

  • hollyanna January 19, 2011 (8:13 am)

    Thank you Judge Heavey!
    The case against Amanda and Raffaele is utterly ridiculous! With the growing support Amanda and Raffaele are receiving from around the world there will be no other choice for the Italians other than to let these two innocent kids go free!!

  • KayPea January 19, 2011 (8:36 am)

    A the root of this case is poor investigative techniques. It is incandescently clear that the Perugian court system has abused three families.

    All these details that you people argue incessantly about is based in lies and misconceptions presented by a creepy old man and his cronies.

    And Guilters are defending their lies. Why?

    Pretending that Supporters are blinded and swindled and dumb is not helping your case. You look desperate and silly.

  • Kayleigh January 19, 2011 (9:14 am)

    Heavy’s obsession with this case is both inappropriate and, well, obsessive–and the reason why I did not vote for him and never will. Oh, and my daddy would not be proud of me if I’d gotten myself into a mess like that, ’cause I was taught to keep my nose clean and pick my friends and activities carefully–yes, even in my early 20s. Good gawd.

  • Carolina January 19, 2011 (9:23 am)

    I think most of their convictions are based on two things: The confession and the witnesses.
    Both of it are now with lost credibility in courts, cause kids around 20 years are highly manipulate and lots of wrongful convictions in past years were because of it. Stress plus being tired leads to that. And the witnesses are now at least in USA, use less and less, studies had conclude that most of them becomes to be false after 10 or more years of guilty when they accept it, they were confused or even conducted to that by police . The only thing that it´s left it´s science, and clearly they don´t have a single real evidence against Amanda or her boyfriend. They evidence is really questioned (DNA) because of inappropriate handle, possible contamination, etc. A knife that doesn´t fit the wounds, footprints that also don´t fit to her, too many things. And yes, DNA can be transfer even with a hug so is easily contaminated. And a motive that won´t believed anybody.
    If this would happen in the States I think it wouldn´t even get to trial. If so, reasonable doubt would win.
    You can read about wrongful conviction because of witnesses and false confessions all over the internet.
    I think they are innocent young kids who were in some way abused by police who because of international attention will seek for a guilty conviction no matter what or in this case, no matter who.

  • Michaelsmth January 19, 2011 (9:38 am)

    Correct Giselle on one thing: Italian authorities have kept many of pages of documents secret….
    because they would exonerate Amanda & Raffaele.

    Actually, one Italian authority after another has now admitted a rush to judgment. They affirm how weak the case was to begin with, and never should have come to trial.

    However, the Massei report is all one needs to see reasonable doubt abounds. All the U.S. experts have read it carefully, and knocked down every piece of so-called evidence.

    Judge Heavey is among the first, putting his career on the line to stop a grave miscarriage of justice. Anyone who studies the case carefully will recognize two innocent students were wrongfully convicted.

  • Ronaldo January 19, 2011 (9:50 am)

    Martin Luther King, King Solomon, the US Supreme Court and……drugged-up party girl Amanda Knox. Yeah, Mr Heavey, you really know how to impress an audience. That’s why the photo showing you speaking to an empty table is exactly right…even if it was only for ‘presentation logistics (whatever that is)

  • Gonzo36 January 19, 2011 (10:15 am)

    I have read the Judge’s report at length, and it actually has a lot of information in it that does NOT prove Knox or Sollecito killed Meredith or were even there. One theory was they were there with Guede and all three participated. There is some evidence towards that (though not much, and a lot of it was faulty to begin with). There is just as much evidence that ONLY Guede committed the murder without any help from anyone.

    Also, if this appeal doesnt go well for Knox and Sollecito, they have one more chance to appeal to the Supreme Court of Italy. But I have faith that this new judge will overlook the bogus stories told by the corrupt prosecutor and realize the ‘massive amount’ of evidence just isnt there.

  • kitty waters January 19, 2011 (11:04 am)

    Hon. Judge Michael Heavey – thank you for speaking out about this wrongful conviction and terrible miscarriage of justice. I truly hope that Amanda and Raffaele will be free and exonerated of this vile crime and allowed to return home to their family and friends where they belong in the very near future.

  • Antony January 19, 2011 (12:37 pm)

    Take Knox and the Italian boyfriend out of it completely. Read “The Monster of Florence”. That prosecutor has no business being in office. Any case he has tried should be scrubbed and investigated from scratch. Otherwise, it is a miscarriage of justice for the victims.

  • Deborah King January 19, 2011 (4:17 pm)

    Apart from the poster above trying to sell his awful book (stop it), it is strange how friends and family state so positively that Knox had nothing to do with this murder, and yet make no attempt to explain any of the very strange events..like Knox claiming she heard Meredith dying (even describing her chocking on her own blood, long before anyone knew that this had happened), like Knox saying she saw a named black man commit the murder, like Knox calling her mother at a strange time in Seattle, like Knox’s DNA and fingerprints being cleaned up all over the flat etc….It may be that many supporters think Knox should be let off her crimes, but that is very different to her being innocent.

  • Michaelsmth January 19, 2011 (5:18 pm)

    Deborah – all this has been explained, over and over and over. That’s why such a growing chorus of experts are stating they couldn’t have done it.

    It’s also why Italians are realizing they rushed to judgment, and now believe Amanda and Raffaele are innocent.

  • E Walker January 19, 2011 (8:46 pm)

    Here’s the part of the report on Heavey’s remarks that I thought was rich: “He says 99 percent of the people he sees as a judge are high-school dropouts, often with drugs issues. Not applicable to Amanda Knox, an honor-roll student at UW, he said.” However, Knox admits she and Sollecito smoked dope together, using that as part of her excuse for not remembering what she did on the night of the murder. She isn’t a “high-school dropout,” but she does meet one of Heavey’s other criteria for the type of person that appears in his court; she has “drug issues.” Of course her defenders will probably say, “Most clean-cut white college kids smoke dope, so what?” Knox’s defenders also like to describe Rudy Guede as a “drug dealer” and “drifter,” but they would bristle if someone described Knox as “drug user.” They’re also excited that one of the witnesses against Knox now faces drug-dealing charges. If you call him a “drug dealer,” it’s only fair to call Knox a “drug buyer.”

  • Deborah King January 20, 2011 (2:16 am)

    E-Walker: As an objective reader with no links to Seattle, I could not agree with you more.

    MichaelSmth: How can you call a year long court case a ‘rush to judgement’? Your misuse of language is very disturbing.

    Similary, you say ‘all this has been explained, over and over and over’ – well it hasn’t, has it. Knox was sent to prison by an impartial jury. The conviction was supported by more than 30 independent judges. These are all highly intelligent, informed legal experts, not internet posters churning out platitudes from the other side of the Atlantic.

    There is no ‘growing chorus of experts’ – Heaney certainly isn’t one. He’s probably never even been to Italy. He makes it clear that he’s a US nationalist defending one of his own. It’s all rather sinister and unpleasant – he effectively dismisses the whole legal process as a waste of time because it was run by stupid foreigners. Heaney is arrogant and, with respect, clearly not the cleverest old man in Seattle.

    Finally, Italians do not believe these two convicted killers are innocent. There may be doubt in the conviction, and it is up to clever lawyers to try and exploit that doubt and produce evidence defending Knox and Sollecito. They’ve clearly failed because both of the defendants are in prison.

    Posting banal statements on the internet (‘Amanda is innocent and she’s coming home! Whoopee!!!) adds nothing to the debate, and merely convinces people that Knox’s sole mitigation is that she has family and neighbours. Well so do lots of convicted criminals, but that doesn’t make them innocent.

  • amused January 20, 2011 (6:22 am)

    The Rotary has now lost my support.

  • Gonzo36 January 20, 2011 (7:42 am)

    @ E Walker:

    There is a huge difference btwn pot and heroin, which is what the hobo witness is being charged with. There is also a difference btwn Guede, who was so waisted he fell asleep on the toilet (via the boys who lived downstairs from Meredith) and was pretty much homeless. He has also been found a few times breaking into places that were not his home and trying to steal items. This can not be said of Knox or Sollecito. Also, I am under the impression Knox didnt buy the drugs- her boyfriend did. Now, if Knox and Sollecito were heavy into the drug scene, shot up heroin, and were good friends with Guede the story might be different. But guess what? They weren’t. BTW, Amanda’s roommates also admitted to smoking pot, and Meredith had to get home to water her boyfriend’s pot plants.

  • NotMe January 20, 2011 (9:33 am)

    I wish Deborah King had been up to the podium right after Heaney. I am a bit disturbed that someone in his position would make statements like he did.
    There is your “growing chorus,” Mr. Heaney. As for “supporters” of AK, there aren’t really that many, in the grand scheme of things. There were enough people on that jury that didn’t think so, too.

  • Martin January 20, 2011 (9:37 am)

    One things for sure. The press is consistently writing stories presenting what they call truth and facts. The next article you read will say the exact opposite. For example: One web site showed a bathroom covered in blood that no one in there right mind would shower in. The next website shows a drop of blood on the faucet and what appears to be a foot print (I guess)on the floor mat. They have done this in every aspect of the case. If the press is split down the middle of the facts then how can any of you judge what happened. Its a matter of what you want to believe at this point. Yet still I cant see a motive for anyone but guede. He was a theif breaking into houses like he had been before this and in this case he clearly had sex with a girl who died shortly after.Hmmmmmmm Seems to be he was the only one who benefited from the crime.

  • oldowl January 20, 2011 (10:04 am)

    Sollecito’s defense never talked about police abuse,railroading, anti-Americanism etc. because they knew these accuses weren’t credible and just stupid.
    Amanda hated Meredith because she had told her English friends that she had told Amanda to clean the bathroom after using it, to be careful about the men she brought home to sleep with her, and to be more neat about her dildoes. And when Amanda learned that she was losing her job to Meredith, she arranged a way to humiliate her by having her raped, eventually losing control.

  • Gonzo36 January 20, 2011 (11:09 am)


    There is evidence that Meredith had some problems with Amanda, especially pertaining to the bathroom. But there is ZERO evidence Amanda had a problem with Meredith. So your ‘conclusion’ would make more sense if Amanda had been killed. But she wasnt. As for her ‘dildos’ Amanda only had one, it was about 2 inches, and was a gag gift from a friend- it had never been used. As for Amanda loosing her job to Meredith- this is a total lie found nowhere. But if you prefer to believe your lies and think Knox is guilty, be my guest.

  • saralee coleman January 20, 2011 (8:13 pm)

    unbiased jury? they were fed daily doses of publicity against amanda, including she was satanic, sex maniac, evil, on, and on. the jury was not un-biased in any way, shape, or form. this is a travesty. the prosecuter consulted psychics during the trial.

  • Helena January 21, 2011 (5:47 am)

    I notice that the supporters have ignored my question which seems to be the case when faced with evidence that cannot be ignored. I’ll ask again…why is the DNA evidence against Amanda & Raffaele corrupt when the evidence against Guede is good despite the same lab and staff being involved in the tests? On the same subject, why did the defense not attend the original testing when they were invited to do so?

    Two different questions: If Amanda and Meredith were such close buddies (as per Amanda’s recent statement to court), why did Amanda choose not to attend the memorial for Meredith in Perugia a few days after her death but before Amanda’s arrest? Also, why are the defense focussing on Mignini…there were two prosecutors on the case, Comodi and Mignini, both had equal weight and ability to argue the decision. Take Mignini out of the picture and there is still Comodi pushing for the life sentence. Mignini will have nothing to do with this appeal…who will you all blame when it fails?

  • Gonzo36 January 21, 2011 (6:57 am)

    “why is the DNA evidence against Amanda & Raffaele corrupt when the evidence against Guede is good despite the same lab and staff being involved in the tests?”

    The defense isnt arguing all the DNA is corrupt. Only the DNA of Meredith on the knife and the DNA of Sollecito on the bra clasp. The defense argues the Meredith DNA was handled in such a way as to make the test very susceptible to contamination. The Sollecito DNA is being argued that because it was moved around the floor it could have picked up other DNA. They are also arguing the DNA found had other ‘unknown’ persons in the same sample.

    “why did Amanda choose not to attend the memorial for Meredith in Perugia a few days after her death but before Amanda’s arrest?”

    I think (but I am not positive) that Amanda was being questioned at this time. She was questioned many times over the 4 days before she was arrested.

    “Also, why are the defense focusing on Mignini”

    He was the prime prosecutor. He is also the prosecutor convicted of ‘abuse of office’.

  • Gonzo36 January 21, 2011 (8:13 am)

    “why did Amanda choose not to attend the memorial for Meredith in Perugia a few days after her death but before Amanda’s arrest?”

    I found more information on this ^. NONE of the roommates attended. It was ‘said’ they didnt want the publicity and stayed away.

  • santacroce January 21, 2011 (12:09 pm)

    Will Knox wear her “All You Need Is Love” tee shirt at the appeals trial?

  • Stargazer January 21, 2011 (12:56 pm)

    No, she’ll be wearing her ‘Magical Mystery Tour’ T-Shirt for the appeal… That or the ‘Rubber Soul’ one.

  • Mary H. January 22, 2011 (12:42 am)

    Helena wrote: “I’ll ask again…why is the DNA evidence against Amanda & Raffaele corrupt when the evidence against Guede is good despite the same lab and staff being involved in the tests?”

    The biggest difference between Guede’s DNA evidence and Amanda and Raffaele’s DNA evidence (apart from the sample sizes) is that Rudy’s DNA was found before he became a suspect, while Amanda and Raffaele’s was allegedly found after they were already incarcerated. This order of events would raise suspicions about investigative practices in any country.

    Also, Amanda and Raffaele’s alleged DNA samples were found under utterly preposterous, implausible circumstances, whereas Rudy’s was found right where a killer would leave it.

    The defense had an agent representing them at the testing.

  • Stargazer January 22, 2011 (7:48 am)

    Hmmm…You’re clutching at straws there, Mary_H. So incriminating DNA was found in ‘utterly implausible’ places…like a knife in Sollecito’s flat! Oh, of course, this was caused by a simple ‘cooking accident’. Of course!…And actually DNA is nowadays often found 20 or 30 years after a crime and used to convict. It doesn’t matter when incriminating evidence is found. But of course you people will find an excuse for everything – Italian secret agents planting the DNA, Italian police brainwashing Knox to say certain things before beating her up, Knox having powerful ‘visions’ straight out of a sci fi movie, martians planting knives..All as pathetic as Heavey’s embarrassing little speech.

Sorry, comment time is over.