<p>Amanda Knox is innocent. If you really look at the evidence in its totality there can be no other conclusion. Peruse this exhaustive look at all aspects of this case by a former FBI agent.</p>
<p><a href=“Professional Opinion From Veteran FBI Agent Steve Moore”>http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/FBI2.html</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>We don’t know that. But we do not that she cannot be/was not proven guilty. And that is all that matters in her case.</p>
<p>Because there is no sequestering of juries in Italy, in high profile cases the prosecutor will undertake a smear campaign in the dailies, concurrent with the trial. The Italian press does not exactly have the same need for proof that burdens the US press and they will print pretty much whatever the prosecutor says.</p>
<p>The British tabloids, given their primary interest, picked up the prosecutor’s stories. The American press picked them up second hand, reporting as to what had been reported in the tabloids, not that the reports were true or had been verified. In our slapdash moralizing that has come to pass as actual investigative journalism, people like Ann
Coulter started speaking about these “facts” as if they were verifiable truth. Almost all of it was either outright lies (she showered to wash off the blood, they called the police only after they had cleaned the place with bleach, the window was broken from the inside) or baseless conjecture (“We were able to establish guilt by closely observing the suspect’s psychological and behavioral reactions during the interrogations. We don’t need to rely on other kinds of investigation as this method has enabled us to get to the guilty parties in a very quick time." -Head Investigator Edgardo Giobbo). That all of this became part of the accepted knowledge of the general public is no surprise to social scientists.</p>
<p>So Amanda Knox was taken into custody based on their feeling that she had something to do with the murder. But the overwhelming evidence - rape, a man’s handprint and footprints in blood - which is how first Lumumba and later Sollecito were arrested based on zero evidence. After 5 days of interrogations, without a lawyer (against Italian law, by the way), while witholding food, water, and sleep, she signed a document written in Italian by someone else.</p>
<p>A conviction came based on little actual evidence.</p>
<p>Three eye witnesses - one claimed to see the 3 suspects together, but couldn’t describe them, one who claimed that he saw just two of them but accidentally provided an alibi, and one who claimed to hear multiple people running away from the scene but didn’t know the time or the date.</p>
<p>The knife from Rafaelle’s apartment with Amanda Knox’s DNA on the handle- Prosecution claimed that they found the victim’s DNA on the blade. What they don’t say is that they found no blood on the blade, no DNA on the blade when first tested, or the the size and shape of the blade do not match the stab wounds. In the appeal process, it turns out that the knife had not recently been washed.</p>
<p>The bra clasp - the bra that was cut off of the victim was not taken into evidence immediately. It was moved around the apartment for 47 days, thrown into a pile with other things in the apartment including a rug, then brought to a lab and tested. By then, it had Rafaelle’s DNA on it and the DNA of four other people. The other four “murderers” are still at large.</p>
<p>Which brings us to the question as to why Italians in general are unable to admit that this whole thing was such a mess. Having grown up with an Italian mother with a large extended Italian family, in an area that was probably 25% Italian, I have my obvious cultural biases. You all can form your own.</p>
<p>By the way, Sollecito was asked if Amanda could possibly have snuck out of the room while he was sleeping. He said, “possibly.” That is far different than claiming she wasn’t there that night.</p>
<p>Has anyone in this case taken a lie detector test? Know it is not admissible here in the states but it would go a long way in any public relations effort for her if she passed one. Wondering why her attorney has not suggested this?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What blood evidence? The one that was destroyed in testing of the knife? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What footsteps? The ones that prosecution (!) claimed that Knox got rid of leaving all Guede’s footsteps?</p>
<p>Where do you get your facts?</p>
<p>“Because there is no sequestering of juries in Italy, in high profile cases the prosecutor will undertake a smear campaign in the dailies, concurrent with the trial. The Italian press does not exactly have the same need for proof that burdens the US press and they will print pretty much whatever the prosecutor says.”</p>
<p>This is not unique to the foreign press. I’m actually surprised to read that anyone thinks that.</p>
<p>There was no “Knox and Kercher’s blood together.” When they swabbed the bathroom floor that the two girls shared, they found Kercher’s blood and Knox’s DNA. On her own bathroom floor. But they word it in a way that makes people believe that it was mixed blood. The crime scene photo leaked by the prosecutor, that looked like there was a bunch of blood, was actually luminol. </p>
<p>Guede has stopped talking. Since he is up for parole next year, crossing Mignini at this point would not help him. </p>
<p>And one shared joint does not make a “druggy high” or about 1/2 of the US would be in prison now.</p>
<p>So Guede’s sentence is reduced to 16 years and Amanda is given 28 years. There is a ton of evidence linking Guede to the crime and virtually none as it relates to Knox and Sollecito. The Italian justice system is no better than a kangaroo court. At least, the food and wine is pretty good.</p>
<p>
Maybe they wouldn’t risk it because these tests are not absolutely reliable. All it measures are physiological characteristics which are correlated with deception such as blood pressure, respiratory rate, and sweat on the fingertips. The obvious problem is that if you don’t have confidence in the test, on the key questions one might get nervous and these indexes of deception may increase. For example, when asked if you killed someone, your blood pressure might rise even when answering truthfully because you think the test may not work. </p>
<p>Speaking of scientific tests relevant for murder trials, I’ve watched a number of these Dateline specials and the blood splatter test seems totally like junk science to me. It often seems like they are over-reaching.</p>
<p>I haven’t followed this case as closely as some of you obviously have, but it seems the evidence is muddled enough to make me have “reasonable doubt”. To make this relevant to CC- Does anybody have concerns about sending a kid to study abroad when you hear about things like this? </p>
<p>Right now, I have reasonable doubt, too. But, that’s not really how it works. I also haven’t heard the evidence and a convincing closing argument. At this point I still think I could be convinced.</p>
<p>goldenpooch, excellent article. It seems that if Amanda was involved, she must have been wearing a space suit. </p>
<p>No, the luminol that showed the blood all in the apartments and that showed footprints including one of a barefuoot S. </p>
<p>Seriously, if you look at the true list of evidence, there are things there that are not concocted and meet any court standards. The thing that is terrible distressing to me is that the US media is parroting stories without checking out the actual evidence. Both sides are coming up with theories and stories which is fine–that’s what one does, but they have to be based on the bare bones of facts, and that is NOT what is happening here</p>
<p>Do I personally think Knox killed Kercher? I don’t know. I really have no opinion on that, as there is NO direct evidence that supports that. But there is direct evidence that she was there and has not told the truth about any number of facts in the case, not just once or twice but repeatedly, and still even as she responds to the verdict she is lying. The fact is very clear and straight out of the “horse’s mouth” that the Kerchers want her convicted and believe she is very involved in their daughter’s death. Yet she makes a public statement exactly the opposite. She says there is no evidence that links her to the case–pretty much exact words, but there is a lot of evidence that is usable in a murder case that does, and the police really would be doing sloppy job to ignore it. </p>
<p>The case makes no sense at all. The one explanation is that all three killed her and then forgot about the whole thing including each other’s involvements in the case. Total amnesia. Because none of the stories hang together and they can’t even blame each other adequately. </p>
<p>Another possibility is that the drug use that evening was understated both by all the defendants and the press. Perhaps they were blasted out of their minds and truly do not remember all of what happened that night.</p>
<p>If she just said that I would be less suspicious. The lying is a problem, and, it continues. </p>
<p>The only lying that’s happening today in this case is on the part of the Italian prosecutors and the judges. You would have to be deaf, blind and dumb to think otherwise.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It is impossible for a reasonable person viewing the evidence without some preconceived agenda to believe that Amanda Knox killed the victim. The Italian judicial system is a joke. </p>
<p>The daily mail is using loaded language to describe Knoxs demeanor upon hearing the verdict.
Other outlets describe her as " breaking down in tears", the Mail refers to her “fury”.</p>
<p>I saw it described as defiance in a few places. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Were you there, goldenpooch? How do you know what actually happened? (Not think…KNOW.)</p>