<p>Yes, the statements are dated November 6 - sorry.the print on the translations is very small. Knox was at class at the University the whole day of Nov. 5th and accompanied Rafaelle that evening when he was called back. </p>
<p>All the roommates and everyone at murder scene were questioned on the 2nd and 3rd. On the 4th Knox and all the roommates were with police looking at knives at the apartment and then she wrote that lengthy e-mail to her family/friends in the U.S. later that same day. On the 5th she went to classes and then that night implicated Lumumba when she was at the station with Rafaelle.</p>
<p>I agree. If she implicated herself under interrogation and reversed herself, I would believe the reversal. Implicating someone else looks more like a coverup even if it’s made under interrogation.</p>
<p>More interesting opinions on the Sunday talking head shows about how the extradition question will play out.</p>
<p>Matthew Dowd on ABC TV argued somewhat indignantly the USDOJ can’t justify fighting a legitimate extradition order from Italy, as in his opinion Italian law has been adhered to, no matter our opinion of the verdict. He also feels that if Knox’s demographic profile were different, Americans might not be so quick to trash the justice system in Italy. ‘Basically, Knox is an attractive young woman and thus gets sympathy that another demographic might not receive,’ to paraphrase Dowd.</p>
<p>Paul Krugman said that the U.S. “could spin” the extradition issue and drag it out for years by claiming that the recent verdict is double jeopardy. Obviously at this point we know that double jeopardy is permissible under the law in Italy, but Krugman said it might be properly debated by U.S. authorities.</p>
<p>After seeing Knox’s interview the other day, I tend to believe that there’s a good chance that before the U.S. takes her passport away, she will flee to a country that has no treaty with Italy. She essentially said that she would never willingly return to Italy.</p>
<p>The first go around with the police had no issues in terms of rough treatment. EVERYONE was questioned that lived near, in the flat. It was just routine. In that statement S just gave a version of his evening and his morning and it included Knox having dinner at his place, cleaning up, watching a movie, being on the computer, Knox leaving that evening. Then activities the day the body was found. No issues with that interrogation. A major problem was that Knox’s version and Sollecito’s did not match as Knox said she was with S all night, and he said she left at a certain time. He changed his story to say, he did not know when she left and she could have been there all night but he could not swear it. She changed her story when confronted with the disparity to say that she did leave Sollecito, that night as he said, and went with Lumumba back to her apartment, which was the statement that she says was coerced out of her by the police through sleep deprivation, food deprivation, no translator, the police giving her the prompts, outright telling her Lumumba was with her, etc, etc. The statement was not admissable as part of the murder trial but was in Lumumba’s suit against her and for false statement purposes, because K’s status then changed from background witness to a suspect and she was entitled to an attorney. </p>
<p>So neither K or S gave truthful accounts of their whereabouts from the get go, and subsequent stories just got worse. </p>
<p>It’s going to be interesting how the US will react if Italy asks for her to be extradited there She will, of course, be permitted to fight the extradition in our courts. If her outcome is unsuccessful in our system, and if our courts ignore the PR campaign, it likely will be, then yes, she will be returned to Italy as international law requires so. If she flees, she will be a fugutive here as well as in Italy, and she will have to pick a country will not honor Italy’s extradition rules. </p>
<p>I don’t care what she said to whom or when. I don’t care whether she panicked and made some misguided attempt to throw suspicion elsewhere or clean the apartment. I care that there is NO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE of her or Sollecito having been in the room and participating in the murder while the room is REPLETE with physical evidence that someone else was there and killed her. I also care that that person showed the expected physical signs of being the perpetrator of such a murder, and she showed NONE.</p>
<p>The idea that blood trace found in the bathroom of two menstruating young women is evidence of murder is simply laughable. Or it would be laughable if it weren’t being used as “evidence” to railroad clearly innocent people because the prosecutor is suffering from an intense case of testosterone poisoning.</p>
<p>@HarvestMoon1, it is cptofthehouse who maintains that they “must” have held her down for Guede to stab, and maybe joined in on the stabbing. </p>
<p>But you keep saying she lied about this or that, so she must have done “something.” Since the physical evidence makes it clear that she did not participate in the murder, what the heck do you think she DID? Do you think she recruited Guede to rape and murder her roommate? Do you think she PAID him to do so? Seriously? If she didn’t do either of those things, where is her culpability for the murder? Panicking and trying to clean up because you are afraid or just dumb is not equivalent to murder, and not something one would spend years in prison for, although she has already done so. </p>
<p>And BTW, if she did something to try to cover up or throw suspicion on someone else because she was afraid that the Italian police would try to pin it on her, she turned out to be right, didn’t she? Maybe she could have avoided it all by doing nothing but call the police in the first place. Frankly, I doubt it, given what we’ve seen from the prosecution.</p>
<p>The way this thing thing went down scares me. My children have, and wish to again, travel abroad. One of my biggest fears is that something will happen and they won’t have American law to protect them. And I can absolutely see a somewhat naive, ditzy girl (who may have Asperger’s) being railroaded by the justice system in another country. Did she lie? Probably. She was scared. Does that mean she murdered someone? Uh, no. That means she lied. If this was my daughter I would already be on a plane with her to some country that wouldn’t extradite her. People here are very judgmental about how she acted in the days she was being interrogated. She was just a kid, alone in a foreign country. A parent’s worst nightmare.</p>
<p>People are forgetting all the lies the prosecution and the Italian media propagated during this case. The Foxy Roxy, sex crazed stories about Knox, using bleach to clean the crime scene and taking a shower in a blood-soaked bathroom. I find the prosecution far less trustworthy than Knox and Sollecito.</p>
<p>The reason for suspicion from the onset is that neither Knox’s nor Sollecito’s initial statements that would have established an alibi panned out. Not even close. This was before any interest was taken in either of them. </p>
<p>As I said before, i tend to be very much on the side of the accused in most all cases, even when it’s highly unpopular to do so, and even when it’s highly likely the person did do it, looking at reasonable alternatives. So, do I think she and S deserved a guilty verdict? I don’t, given what the Italian court has declared must have happened. That she was tried, and that there is evidence to have tried her I cannot argue. Something just isn’t right with the story she has given, all of them. I am not basing my opinion on what the Knox PR machine is spewing out, and many of those assertions are not correct which makes it even more difficult to defend her. It’s not as crazy as it sounds that she was accused and that the sentiment is that she knows a lot more of what happened and had some involvement. Actually committing the murder? No. But there is something not right here, quite a bit. Given the original statements, the changes, the evidence, i don’t see how the Italians could not accuse her for involvement. For actual murder…no, i don’t think there is sufficient evidence for that, but as an accessory, yes. Certainly for lying to the authorities, and I am not even counting her coerced confession in all of this. Which is something that I don’t understand why she did move forward and sue the police for. They did not even challenge this even after losing the civil suit and serving jail time for what she says she was coerced in saying. </p>
<p>Both the prosecution and the defense agree that there was no Amanda Knox DNA in the murder room. None. Zero. How is that “spewing out” by the Knox PR machine? We’re still waiting on an even mildly plausible explanation as to how a person could clean up their own DNA without disturbing the DNA of the two people who were definitely there.</p>
<p>It strikes me as just plain weird that anyone would even consider this possible, much less plausible, especially someone who works in the justice system. </p>
<p>Magnetron, you aren’t going to get any answers. Cptofthehouse has determined that no matter what evidence, verdict or appeal comes out, Amanda Knox is guilty. Maybe not guilty of the murder itself, but of something. And that’s enough to send her to an Italian prison for another 20+ years.</p>
<p>Tough case and no doubt there are strong opinions on both sides. I think Alan Dershowitzs’ comments on the verdict are interesting and relevant. No matter what you think of Alan Dershowitz, he does have vast and deep experience in the area of criminal law…</p>
<p>But the prosecution case is not one to be lightly dismissed: as the Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz put it, “the factors that led to Knox’s initial conviction included an admission that she was at the crime scene, her false accusation of an innocent man, an inconsistent alibi and evidence of her DNA on the alleged murder weapon. Those things would not be dismissed as negligible, either in the UK or the US.”</p>
<p>I don’t usually agree with Alan Dershowitz, but in this case I do. Crimes do frequently “defy expectation.” I have no idea what his thoughts are on ultimate guilt or innocence. He is customarily a staunch supporter of the accused, but it seems that he does agree that the prosecution has more than a leg to stand on.</p>
<p>Have you seen pictures of that “alleged murder weapon?” In the appeal, the prosecution admitted that the 6" bread knife from the first trial was not the murder weapon, the one that made the 3" deep stab wounds. They found rye bread on the knife but no blood. How can you wash a knife well enough to get rid of all traces of blood, all but an insignificantly small and unverifiable amount of DNA, but leave bread crumbs on it? So the one piece of actual evidence they had is now zero pieces of evidence and the scenario gets even more preposterous.</p>
<p>To Alan Dershowitz, the guy who helped OJ and Klaus von Bulow get acquitted, facts are frangible but the decisions of the courts are final. His livelihood depends on not disparaging the decisions of judges. He is a staunch defender of the accused when he is paid to be, not when he takes on the role of justifying the probable case of our country shipping this girl back to Italy.</p>
<p>I heard Dershowitz’s interview. He has no problem that they were convicted when the evidence shows they were not in Meredith Kercher’s room. He has picked the side of the Italian Justice System, and is not worried about the actual evidence-based conclusions. </p>
<p>Dershowitz is not saying she is guilty. All he is saying is that it would be difficult for the US to refuse an extradition request because there is nothing in the treaty which would have been violated. He also said it would be difficult politically because we extradite more people than any other country in the world. Regardless, I hope the US turns down any extradition request.</p>
<p>What Dershowitz specifically said in the video was “there is a lot of evidence that she did it and some evidence that she is innocent, in balance it is more likely than not that she did it, but there is not enough evidence to prove it………” </p>
<p>Some might not care what Dershowitz thinks and that is fine. My real point of posting the video was simply to illustrate that concluding Knox had some involvement is not all that unreasonable or far-fetched. Here is a guy who has practiced criminal law for 50 years and has come to a similar conclusion. What was that involvement? Who knows, and it is quite clear that under the U.S. system of justice, the prosecution would not have proven it’s case. Unfortunately for Knox, the Italian system does not work that way.</p>
<p>Dershowitz is worth listening too. He was correct in the Trayvon Martin case and he is probably right that there might be some evidence to support conviction. I still don’t buy it. If she had been involved, the victim’s DNA would have been all over her and her DNA all over the victim much like the guy who killed the victim had his DNA everywhere. </p>
<p>Well, it isn’t necessarily all or nothing. She could have had some minor involvement before the fact - like letting Guede into the house, for instance - and then panicked and tried to cover things up out of fear that she would be accused of complicity if she told the truth. That would be consistent with both the relative lack of physical evidence connecting her to the crime AND the various discrepancies in her story and possible attempts at concealment. </p>
<p>Dershowitz is a smart guy. I would note that he’s essentially saying that she couldn’t be convicted of the crime in a US court on the evidence as it was presented, because he doesn’t think it shows guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This is a nuanced position. I also think it’s key to note, as he does, that your view of this case is likely colored by which country’s media you’ve been following. I have a coworker from the UK, and he was surprised to learn that anybody could think she is innocent.</p>