Amanda Knox's murder conviction overturned by Italian court

Italy's highest court on Friday overturned the guilty verdicts against Amanda Knox and her former boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito in the 2007 murder of British student Meredith Kercher.

The court acquitted Knox and Sollecito in the murder of Meredith Kercher, a 21-year-old exchange student who was found dead in the home she shared with Knox and two other roommates in the Italian city of Perugia.

In November 2007, Meredith Kercher was discovered stabbed in the neck on her bed in the Perugia apartment. Investigators alleged that Knox, then 20 years old, and Sollecito killed Kerchner along with Rudy Guede, an Ivory Coast national raised in Perugia. Knox and Sollecito have always maintained their innocence.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/27/amanda-knox-trial_n_6934608.html

The Kercher family are not happy with that decision.

Kercher family have a bitter pill to swallow after verdict

After more than seven years of twists, turns and retrials, Meredith Kercher’s relatives must come to terms with the fact that the only people who have ever been seriously considered suspects in the case are now to walk free

he mother of murdered British student Meredith Kercher said she was “surprised and very shocked” by an Italian court’s decision to overturn the convictions of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito.

Ms Kercher, 21, from Coulsdon, Surrey, was sexually assaulted and stabbed to death in her bedroom in 2007 while studying in Perugia, Italy.

Arline Kercher, Meredith’s mother, said she had heard little more about the decision other than the verdict.

From the Guardian

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/27/kercher-family-knox-sollecito-verdict-hard

They've got the guy who killed Kercher.  The rest was just a bunch of cops and prosecutors trying to make a name for themselves so they could appear on Forensic Files.  DNA evidence...pffft.  They wouldn't know it from dumplings.  

AP wrote:To date, prosecutors have yet to prove a realistic motive behind Kercher’s murder. According to Sollecito’s defense lawyer, Giulia Bongiorno, the entirety of the murder charges for both Knox and Sollecito were “littered with errors and absolutely littered with contradictions and by an illogical motivation”, reported the AP on Wednesday.

I'm agreeing with Quill --Again.

I also agree. The one thing they could never come up with is motive. This will be the end of it now with no more appeals. Raffaele S must be relieved because he could easily have ended up back in prison when he was convicted for the second time.  

I don't know why Meredith's family are complaining - it's as if the conviction of Rudy Guede didn't register with them. They could never seem to accept that one person could have murdered Meredith.

One unexplained piece of evidence is the footprint on the bathroom mat. I don't think Rudy Guede hung around to wash his feet.

If it was Amanda's footprint, it could be explained. She had a shower before the murder was discovered, so she could have stepped on some blood when her feet were wet, and then stepped on the bath mat.

The authorities never took into account that Amanda lived in the apartment too. Logically, her prints would be all over the place…including the famous knife. This is just one piece of the frustration with them. Couldn’t they be reasonable?

One thing…I have been critical of the Italian courts out of frustration with this case. Kudos for the Supreme Court of Italy for cutting through the fog.

  WHO really cares what the wildly despicable and delusional Kercher family feels or thinks !!!

THOSE arseholes were only ever interested in revenge ~ they were NEVER interested in whether they had the guilty parties or not ~ and at the end of the day, they have NEVER shown ANY regard for the overriding lack of evidence, motives or proof..

AMANDA KNOX was found innocent previously, and then retried at the insistence of one the most corrupt and lawless police forces and courts on the planet (just look at how easily the Mafia and other criminal organisations were thriving in that part of Italy over the 1950's -> 1990s..).
IT HAS always been left up to the higher courts of Italy ~ those where the 'Rule of Law' carries much more sway, and local emotions carry zero weight ~ to clean up the messes left by their corrupt local courts and dirt-lazy and inbred-stupid local police goons..

IT SHOULD be remembered at this point that ~ like such other Diplomatic giants as China, Russia, Indonesia and North Korea ~ Italy is one of those countries where an accused person starts off being assumed guilty of any and all supposed crimes by the courts, and it is the role of the accused's defence team to convince the jury of his/her probable innocence..
THE VERY opposite of the "Innocent until proven Guilty" concept that we are familiar with in Britain, America, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and some of you Brit's Euro' neighbours...

LAST SEEN there were hordes of Anti-American Romans and Kercher clan supportees attempting to drown their collective bloodlust-fuelled sorrows by doing the 'long swim' to Libya and Lebanon :

New York Times wrote:
Amanda Knox and Ex-Boyfriend Are Acquitted of Murder by Italian Court

Italy’s highest court acquitted Amanda Knox and her Italian former boyfriend of murder on Friday, throwing out all charges and ending a long-running courtroom drama over the killing of a British student in 2007.

The ruling was a shock in Italy, where the convictions had been expected to be upheld in the death of the student, Meredith Kercher. It the second time that the court, known as the Supreme Court of Cassation, has vacated an appellate court ruling in the case.

Gasps went up among spectators in the Rome courtroom, where after 10 hours of deliberation, the presiding judge, Gennaro Marasca, announced the decision. The reasoning behind the decision is to be made public within 90 days.

READ MORE »
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/28/world/europe/amanda-knox-trial.html?emc=edit_na_20150327

Well of course the Kercher family are entitled to feel very aggrieved about the death of their daughter, but what I don't understand is why they never seem to mention Rudy Guede, who was actually convicted of the murder, and who did actually admit to being there and then running off afterwards, although he has never admitted that he killed Meredith.

I suppose it depends on whether or not you think that Amanda and Raffaele are guilty. If you don't, then you will have sympathy for them as they have suffered greatly for years - during what should have been some of the best years of their life.

Amanda is extremely nice about the Kerchers, but if I was innocent, I'd be getting a bit pissed off about their insistence that they still don't know what happened, and their disappointment that she was acquitted.

WHO really cares what the wildly despicable and delusional Kercher family feels or thinks !!!

Considering the Kercher family have had to cope with the most awful murder of their daughter/sister and have been completly dignified during this whole sorry process, I think that is proberly the most despicable thing I have seen written.

risingsun wrote:WHO really cares what the wildly despicable and delusional Kercher family feels or thinks !!!

Considering the Kercher family have had to cope with the most awful murder of their daughter/sister and have been completly dignified during this whole sorry process, I think that is proberly the most despicable thing I have seen written.

But why don't they accept that Amanda and Raffaele are innocent? I don't get why they insist that Rudy Guede didn't act alone. It does seem that they made up their minds without really looking at the evidence.

Because the forensic evidence is, and always has been, that the murder could not have been done by a single person acting alone.

From the time of Rudy Guede's final sentencing,[1] the Court has accepted that more than one person attacked Meredith Kercher

http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Overview

risingsun wrote:Because the forensic evidence is, and always has been, that the murder could not have been done by a single person acting alone.

From the time of Rudy Guede's final sentencing,[1] the Court has accepted that more than one person attacked Meredith Kercher

http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Overview

I don't think that evidence is very strong tbh. Even if there was more than one person, it doesn't mean it was Amanda or Raffaele. They don't seem to take into account the lack of motive at all. They also don't seem that bothered that Guede is only serving 16 years. They really do seem to have it in for Amanda in particular.

But put yourself in their position. Their beloved daughter is murdered, dreadfully. They are told that more than one person did it, and three people were found guilty. Now two of them have been found not guilty so they know there is someone else out there who did it. Because they then express grief about that, LW then says the above. Utterly and completely disgusting.

risingsun wrote:But put yourself in their position.  Their beloved daughter is murdered, dreadfully.   They are told that more than one person did it, and three people were found guilty.  Now two of them have been found not guilty so they know there is someone else out there who did it.   Because they then express grief about that, LW then says the above.    Utterly and completely disgusting.

Well maybe they do think that someone is out there who hasn't been convicted, but I still don't get why they appear to be blaming those two. They are possibly angry at the wrong people. The only person who can tell them what happened is Guede, and in eight years' time maybe he will. He seems to change his story a lot though.

If I was a Kercher, I would look at the evidence myself - there's plenty out there about it. I don't think they should automatically believe the prosecution really. They are pissed off because those two have been convicted twice, but they've also been acquitted twice.

OP wrote:More than one person attacked Meredith Kercher. From the time of Rudy Guede's final sentencing,[1] the Court has accepted that more than one person attacked Meredith Kercher, with an unusually strong report that pointed towards Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito as the other attackers. Meredith was dressed, awake, and standing for the attack, yet did not defend herself. Unusually, she had no defensive wounds but for three tiny (0.24 inch or 6 mm) cuts on her hand[2], indicating an inability to express normal reflexes, flinch from the small cuts to her neck, or attempt to block the incoming blows with her hands or forearms. Indeed, in addition to wounds which fit two different knife profiles, she suffered numerous compression or restraint bruises to her elbows, wrists, and face. At the trial, consultants for Knox and Sollecito each proposed a single-attacker scenario but could not agree whether this lone wolf had attacked from the front (Torre, Amanda's consultant) or from behind (Introna, Raffaele's consultant). At the appeal, under Judge Hellmann, Sollecito's defense team introduced two witnesses to testify first, that Guede had acted with two people other than Knox and Sollecito, and second, that two people excluding Guede had carried out the attack after mistakenly entering the home. The Supreme Court faulted Judge Hellmann for ignoring their sentence of Guede and supporting the single-wolf theory, which they found unsupported by the facts. They directed the new Appeals Court in Florence to see what evidence ties Rudy Guede together with Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito in the cottage at the same time. Judge Nencini re-examined the evidence and concluded that "we know with certainty, as this is shown by the evidence, that immediately after the homicide inside the Via della Pergola cottage three people were present, surely two men and a woman."

From even this favorable case scenario, it appears that the prosecutors were bending over backwards to cherry-pick evidence and 'make room' for another pair of participants.  Usually, you have one stellar piece of evidence, and then you add tiny, make-weight pieces to that.  But here it is all tiny, insignificant pieces of evidence.  Most importantly, there was nothing to suggest that it was Amanda and Sollecito.

Raggamuffin wrote:If I was a Kercher, I would look at the evidence myself - there's plenty out there about it. I don't think they should automatically believe the prosecution really. They are pissed off because those two have been convicted twice, but they've also been acquitted twice.

So you think they are going to be able to prove a case by evidence on the internet?   Courts don't accept evidence like that!   The only evidence courts accept is that gathered by a forensic team and professionals at the time. And I don't think it is very respectful for you to use phrases like 'they are pissed off'!

I would expect there to be a lot more forensic evidence against them if they were in that room murdering Meredith. There would have been footprints all over the place for a start.

Can anyone explain why Raffaele S would have washed his feet before he left the house?

risingsun wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:If I was a Kercher, I would look at the evidence myself - there's plenty out there about it. I don't think they should automatically believe the prosecution really. They are pissed off because those two have been convicted twice, but they've also been acquitted twice.

So you think they are going to be able to prove a case by evidence on the internet?   Courts don't accept evidence like that!   The only evidence courts accept is that gathered by a forensic team and professionals at the time.   And I don't think it is very respectful for you to use phrases like 'they are pissed off'!

That's not what I meant. I meant that had they looked at the evidence, they would see there is not very much to tie in A and R to the crime.

I don't see what's wrong with saying they're pissed off - they are pissed off.

Disappointed, upset, grieving that someone who killed their relative has got away with it?

They have no recourse to anything but the law of the land, which has let them down badly, and everyone has been fixated of Knex etc and the victim, their relative and what she suffered has just become a side issue.

risingsun wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:If I was a Kercher, I would look at the evidence myself - there's plenty out there about it. I don't think they should automatically believe the prosecution really. They are pissed off because those two have been convicted twice, but they've also been acquitted twice.

So you think they are going to be able to prove a case by evidence on the internet?   Courts don't accept evidence like that!   The only evidence courts accept is that gathered by a forensic team and professionals at the time.   And I don't think it is very respectful for you to use phrases like 'they are pissed off'!

I don't think Raggs is being disrespectful.  She is using the language we all use here.  As you point out, this is after all the Internet.

That said, I wouldn't say the Kirchers or the prosecutors are "pissed off" exactly.  I would say they are being defensive--defensive at having done a poor job of collecting evidence, and a poor job at forensic analysis.  That their conclusions seem illogical--ie, Knox lived in the apartment and you would expect her prints to be everywhere--speaks for itself.  Frankly, I think they are a bit embarrassed at being exposed to the rest of the world for such shoddy work.

risingsun wrote:Disappointed, upset, grieving that someone who killed their relative has got away with it?  

They have no recourse to anything but the law of the land, which has let them down badly, and everyone has been fixated of Knex etc and the victim, their relative and what she suffered has just become a side issue.

Same thing really.

Like I said, it depends if you think that A and R "got away with it" really. If they are innocent, the law has not let the Kerchers down at all. To be fair, they've said a lot about Amanda themselves, so they can't really complain that she gets the limelight. Raffaele is not mentioned so much either.

I take it that you think A and R are guilty?

What has Rudy Guede had to say about Knox & Scilleto? I always wanted her to be guilty because she is so vile. But being vile is not illegal.
I feel for the Kerchers in all this, their child is dead. Was the investigation so poor? Or was it just that the US didn't like one of theirs being charged?

Nems wrote:What has Rudy Guede had to say about Knox & Scilleto? I always wanted her to be guilty because she is so vile. But being vile is not illegal.
I feel for the Kerchers in all this, their child is dead. Was the investigation so poor? Or was it just that the US didn't like one of theirs being charged?

How is she vile? She seems OK to me.

Guede has changed his story a few times - first he says A was there, then he said she wasn't, etc. I'd have to check to see what exactly he said.

I don't think the US has anything to do with it - she was tried in an Italian court.

You don't know about her wealth and the pressure her father and the US embassy brought to bear then?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Nems wrote:What has Rudy Guede had to say about Knox & Scilleto? I always wanted her to be guilty because she is so vile. But being vile is not illegal.
I feel for the Kerchers in all this, their child is dead. Was the investigation so poor? Or was it just that the US didn't like one of theirs being charged?

How is she vile? She seems OK to me.

Guede has changed his story a few times - first he says A was there, then he said she wasn't, etc. I'd have to check to see what exactly he said.

I don't think the US has anything to do with it - she was tried in an Italian court.

She comes across as a spoilt selfish tarty little brat to me.
I take it Rudy didn't get offered anything to spill his guts.

I know the trial was in Italy, but American opinion was that it was flawed.

risingsun wrote:You don't know about her wealth and the pressure her father and the US embassy brought to bear then?

Are you suggesting that the court was bribed?

Nems wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

How is she vile? She seems OK to me.

Guede has changed his story a few times - first he says A was there, then he said she wasn't, etc. I'd have to check to see what exactly he said.

I don't think the US has anything to do with it - she was tried in an Italian court.

She comes across as a spoilt selfish tarty little brat to me.
I take it Rudy didn't get offered anything to spill his guts.

I know the trial was in Italy, but American opinion was that it was flawed.

Really? I've seen her being interviewed and she doesn't come across that way to me at all. She comes across as quite a serious person.

What do you mean about Rudy being offered anything?

Raggamuffin wrote:

risingsun wrote:You don't know about her wealth and the pressure her father and the US embassy brought to bear then?

Are you suggesting that the court was bribed?

You don't need a bribe, you just need political pressure.

risingsun wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Are you suggesting that the court was bribed?

You don't need a bribe, you just need political pressure.

Have you any evidence to suggest that the court acquitted her because of such political pressure?

Nobody has evidence for things like that, it's the way they work.  They had a huge PR campagin, fronted by very expensive David Marriott.



When Knox's trial began, U.S. Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash., and Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., wrote to Italy's Prime Minister, Silvio Berlusconi. They said they would be following the trial and noted that it was "essential to ensure that Amanda Knox receives a fair trial."

Cantwell also sent a letter to Ronald Spogli, then ambassador to the American embassy in Rome as well as a letter to Giovanni Castellaneta, the ambassador for Italy's embassy in Washington D.C.

In both, she noted that media reports had raised "questions about whether Ms. Knox's rights have been adequately protected."

Her interest in the case continues.

"Senator Cantwell continues to actively monitor the Knox case and is consulting with Knox's attorneys, family, U.S. Embassy Rome, and the U.S. State Department," said John Diamond, communications director for Cantwell. "She plans to take some additional steps in the near future."

Smith's office said the congressman, who once worked as a prosecutor in the Seattle City Attorney's Office, also continues to monitor the case.

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/In-Rome-a-discussion-of-Amanda-Knox-tries-to-883030.php


So who knows, she certainly had more money and clout than most people facing trail abroad do.

risingsun wrote:Nobody has evidence for things like that, it's the way they work.  They had a huge PR campagin, fronted by very expensive David Marriott.  

Well I didn't take any notice of that, I looked at the evidence, and I simply couldn't see that there was enough for a conviction, so I don't think it's relevant really.

Of course A's family would do everything they could to get her acquitted - they don't think she did it. After all, the Kerchers did everything they could to get A convicted, and A's family are as entitled to their feelings as much as the Kerchers are.

I've also walked around those streets of Perugia several times - not literally obviously!

Well Raffaele isn't American and he was also acquitted ...

risingsun wrote:Because the forensic evidence is, and always has been, that the murder could not have been done by a single person acting alone.

From the time of Rudy Guede's final sentencing,[1] the Court has accepted that more than one person attacked Meredith Kercher

http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Overview

There's something very weird about Amanda Knox. Her behaviour during and after the trial was incredibly odd.

I think she knew that Meredith had been killed - an accessory after the fact as it were - at the very least.
I do not think she's entitrely "innocent".

eddie wrote:

risingsun wrote:Because the forensic evidence is, and always has been, that the murder could not have been done by a single person acting alone.

From the time of Rudy Guede's final sentencing,[1] the Court has accepted that more than one person attacked Meredith Kercher

http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Overview

There's something very weird about Amanda Knox. Her behaviour during and after the trial was incredibly odd.

I think she knew that Meredith had been killed - an accessory after the fact as it were - at the very least.
I do not think she's entitrely "innocent".

What was weird about her behaviour? I know there was talk of her kissing R outside, and doing cartwheels at the police station, but I think both of those things have been misrepresented and exaggerated. I don't think either of those things indicates that she had just murdered her friend.

She also accused her boss, which was weird, but she also placed herself at the scene at the same time, and if she wanted to do that, she would have just said that she was there with Guede, so I don't think that indicated guilt either.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Nems wrote:

She comes across as a spoilt selfish tarty little brat to me.
I take it Rudy didn't get offered anything to spill his guts.

I know the trial was in Italy, but American opinion was that it was flawed.

Really? I've seen her being interviewed and she doesn't come across that way to me at all. She comes across as quite a serious person.

What do you mean about Rudy being offered anything?

Time off for naming the other killers

i didn't say these things made her guilty per se - they make her emotionless and very insensitive, which makes me wonder why she acted so strangely.

Her step father was a poster (only,posted a handful of times) on a missing Childrens forum that I was a mod on. He admitted her behaviour was weird (yet obviously supported her innocence).

She is odd. That's my opinion and I don't think you've seen the last of her odd behavior either.

Nems wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Really? I've seen her being interviewed and she doesn't come across that way to me at all. She comes across as quite a serious person.

What do you mean about Rudy being offered anything?

Time off for naming the other killers

Oh right. He was originally sentenced to 30 years. The sentence was later reduced to 24 years, with a third knocked off for the fast-track trial, so he got 16. I'm not entirely sure why the sentence was reduced to 24 years. It might be because that's almost the same as the other two got. I think there is info somewhere from the court but it's probably in Italian

eddie wrote:i didn't  say these things made her guilty per se - they make her emotionless and very insensitive, which makes me wonder why she acted so strangely.

Her step father was a poster (only,posted a handful of times) on a missing Childrens forum that I was a mod on. He  admitted her behaviour was weird (yet obviously supported her innocence).

She is odd. That's my opinion and I don't think you've seen the last of her odd behavior either.

You said you thought she knew Meredith had been killed, which would suggest some kind of guilt.

I think it's the way things were reported which made her seem strange. I don't know how people are supposed to react really, and we only saw what the press showed us or told us about.

risingsun wrote:Nobody has evidence for things like that, it's the way they work.  They had a huge PR campagin, fronted by very expensive David Marriott.



When Knox's trial began, U.S. Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash., and Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., wrote to Italy's Prime Minister, Silvio Berlusconi. They said they would be following the trial and noted that it was "essential to ensure that Amanda Knox receives a fair trial."

Cantwell also sent a letter to Ronald Spogli, then ambassador to the American embassy in Rome as well as a letter to Giovanni Castellaneta, the ambassador for Italy's embassy in Washington D.C.

In both, she noted that media reports had raised "questions about whether Ms. Knox's rights have been adequately protected."

Her interest in the case continues.

"Senator Cantwell continues to actively monitor the Knox case and is consulting with Knox's attorneys, family, U.S. Embassy Rome, and the U.S. State Department," said John Diamond, communications director for Cantwell. "She plans to take some additional steps in the near future."

Smith's office said the congressman, who once worked as a prosecutor in the Seattle City Attorney's Office, also continues to monitor the case.

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/In-Rome-a-discussion-of-Amanda-Knox-tries-to-883030.php


So who knows, she certainly had more money and clout than most people facing trail abroad do.

There's nothing wrong with having money and obtaining justice.  What is wrong is when you receive injustice because you don't have money.  That is the same argument that Mark Fuhrman made in his booK, Murder in Brentwood: that American justice will be ruined because the rich can get off.  The shame is not that they get off, but that the poor don't get a chance to argue their case because they can't afford it.

There are a lot of people in America with 'middle money' like the Knox family, in Washington state.  I don't think that so many congressmen and dignitaries would have written were it not for the improprieties in the case.  They were abnormal, even allowing for the differences between Italy and Anglo-American criminal justice.  Amanda Knox is a pretty, but serious young woman, but there was very little focus on that.  She wasn't singled out on Fashion Police, but her case was the subject of a lot of professional legal discussion over here.  Either the Italian perception of what is acceptable evidence is demented, or there was something seriously wrong with the authorities that handled the case.  I think the Italians are better than that, so...

Amanda Knox is free because she's rich and American, says Patrick Lumumba

Bar owner falsely implicated in Meredith Kercher murder says decision to quash convictions of Knox and Sollecito was motivated by politics rather than justice



The Congolese bar owner falsely accused of killing Meredith Kercher has said the decision to quash the conviction of Amanda Knox was a triumph for being “American and rich” rather than justice.

Patrick Lumumba, 42, said the surprise ruling by Italy’s supreme court to annul the murder convictions of Knox and her former boyfriend, Raffaele Sollecito, was motivated by political and diplomatic reasons.

He told the Observer: “This is not good for justice, I think it shows the power available for rich people, she’s American and rich. For a country like Italy this is not good. I think there were diplomatic problems with the US and it makes things difficult with the US so they let her free.

“Amanda is free because she is American, but Americans are human like everybody.”

Lumumba was arrested in November 2007 and spent two weeks behind bars after Knox told Italian police he had killed 21-year-old Kercher, from Coulsdon, Surrey. Kercher’s throat was slashed and she had been sexually assaulted while she was on an Erasmus year in the medieval hill town of Perugia.

At the time Knox, now 27, told investigators that she had “covered her ears as he [Lumumba] killed” Kercher in the bedroom of the flat the women shared.

Her claim – which Italian prosecutors alleged was supposed to direct suspicion off herself – was later proved to be false and Knox was given a three-year sentence for it. She has since said that she struggles with guilt over the false accusation.

But Lumumba, who said his life and business were ruined by the allegation, said: “Amanda lied to me. I am feeling very bad [about the acquittal].”

Speaking from Krakow in Poland, where he now lives with his wife after losing his bar in Perugia and struggling to find a job in the wake of the false murder accusation, Lumumba said that despite the final ruling in the case, he still believed Knox held the answer to the case.

“What Amanda did I don’t know, but I think she knows why Meredith died.”

Knox and Sollecito have always maintained their innocence and Friday’s decision by the court of cassation marks the end of a lengthy legal battle.

Kercher’s mother, Arline, said she was “surprised and shocked” at Friday’s ruling and added it was too early to know what the family would do next.

They had previously expressed confidence in the Italian justice system. And before Friday’s verdict it had been widely anticipated that the court would order a retrial, even if it overturned the previous convictions. The decision by the five-judge panel to clear the pair definitively ends the long-running saga.

Speaking outside the courtroom on Friday, the family’s lawyer, Francesco Maresca, said: “The judges said there is a lack of proof and whoever acted with [Rudi] Guede [the only person found guilty of the murder] has not been found.” Guede, from Ivory Coast, is almost halfway through a 16-year prison sentence after his trial was fast-tracked in 2008.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/mar/28/amanda-knox-free-rich-american-patrick-lumumba-meredith-kercher-murder

Guardian wrote:He told the Observer: “This is not good for justice, I think it shows the power available for rich people, she’s American and rich. For a country like Italy this is not good. I think there were diplomatic problems with the US and it makes things difficult with the US so they let her free.

Yes, it's the same old argument that Fehrman made.  Because a (rich) person gets all of the rights s/he deserves is never a wrong.  It is the comparison with the poor that makes it appear that way.

The poor do not receive all of the rights that they deserve because they cannot afford it.  There is always someone, like Mark Ferhman, who will miss the logic of this.

Plus, it appears that Patrick Lumumba has a bit of an ax to grind.

Guardian wrote:But Lumumba, who said his life and business were ruined by the allegation, said: “Amanda lied to me. I am feeling very bad [about the acquittal].”

An open admission of bias. As Raggs said, the press is mostly responsible.  There are enough make-believe stories about the Knox case out there to write a dozen books. They are in the business of creating drama and a good script for newspaper sales.

Original Quill wrote:

Guardian wrote:He told the Observer: “This is not good for justice, I think it shows the power available for rich people, she’s American and rich. For a country like Italy this is not good. I think there were diplomatic problems with the US and it makes things difficult with the US so they let her free.

Yes, it's the same old argument that Fehrman made.  Because a person gets all of the rights they deserves is never a wrong.  It is the comparison that makes it appear that way.

The poor do not receive all of the rights that they deserve because they cannot afford it.  There is always someone, like Mark Ferhman, who will miss the logic of this.

Plus, it appears that Patrick Lumumba has a bit of an ax to grind.  As Raggs said, the press is mostly responsible.  There are enough make-believe stories about the Knox case out there to write a dozen books.

If innocent why did she lie bout Lumumba ? That's what makes me think at the very least she knows more than she is telling. I think she was there when Meredith died. Wasn't she off buying cleaning stuff soon after the murder too?

risingsun wrote:Amanda Knox is free because she's rich and American, says Patrick Lumumba

Bar owner falsely implicated in Meredith Kercher murder says decision to quash convictions of Knox and Sollecito was motivated by politics rather than justice



The Congolese bar owner falsely accused of killing Meredith Kercher has said the decision to quash the conviction of Amanda Knox was a triumph for being “American and rich” rather than justice.

Patrick Lumumba, 42, said the surprise ruling by Italy’s supreme court to annul the murder convictions of Knox and her former boyfriend, Raffaele Sollecito, was motivated by political and diplomatic reasons.

He told the Observer: “This is not good for justice, I think it shows the power available for rich people, she’s American and rich. For a country like Italy this is not good. I think there were diplomatic problems with the US and it makes things difficult with the US so they let her free.

“Amanda is free because she is American, but Americans are human like everybody.”

Lumumba was arrested in November 2007 and spent two weeks behind bars after Knox told Italian police he had killed 21-year-old Kercher, from Coulsdon, Surrey. Kercher’s throat was slashed and she had been sexually assaulted while she was on an Erasmus year in the medieval hill town of Perugia.

At the time Knox, now 27, told investigators that she had “covered her ears as he [Lumumba] killed” Kercher in the bedroom of the flat the women shared.

Her claim – which Italian prosecutors alleged was supposed to direct suspicion off herself – was later proved to be false and Knox was given a three-year sentence for it. She has since said that she struggles with guilt over the false accusation.

But Lumumba, who said his life and business were ruined by the allegation, said: “Amanda lied to me. I am feeling very bad [about the acquittal].”

Speaking from Krakow in Poland, where he now lives with his wife after losing his bar in Perugia and struggling to find a job in the wake of the false murder accusation, Lumumba said that despite the final ruling in the case, he still believed Knox held the answer to the case.

“What Amanda did I don’t know, but I think she knows why Meredith died.”

Knox and Sollecito have always maintained their innocence and Friday’s decision by the court of cassation marks the end of a lengthy legal battle.

Kercher’s mother, Arline, said she was “surprised and shocked” at Friday’s ruling and added it was too early to know what the family would do next.

They had previously expressed confidence in the Italian justice system. And before Friday’s verdict it had been widely anticipated that the court would order a retrial, even if it overturned the previous convictions. The decision by the five-judge panel to clear the pair definitively ends the long-running saga.

Speaking outside the courtroom on Friday, the family’s lawyer, Francesco Maresca, said: “The judges said there is a lack of proof and whoever acted with [Rudi] Guede [the only person found guilty of the murder] has not been found.” Guede, from Ivory Coast, is almost halfway through a 16-year prison sentence after his trial was fast-tracked in 2008.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/mar/28/amanda-knox-free-rich-american-patrick-lumumba-meredith-kercher-murder

Tbf, Lumumba has an axe to grind, so he's bound to be pissed off too. He doesn't know anything more about it than anyone else - he has no evidence that Amanda is guilty.

Nems wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Yes, it's the same old argument that Fehrman made.  Because a person gets all of the rights they deserves is never a wrong.  It is the comparison that makes it appear that way.

The poor do not receive all of the rights that they deserve because they cannot afford it.  There is always someone, like Mark Ferhman, who will miss the logic of this.

Plus, it appears that Patrick Lumumba has a bit of an ax to grind.  As Raggs said, the press is mostly responsible.  There are enough make-believe stories about the Knox case out there to write a dozen books.

If innocent why did she lie bout Lumumba ? That's what makes me think at the very least she knows more than she is telling. I think she was there when Meredith died. Wasn't she off buying cleaning stuff soon after the murder too?

Who said she lied? The press, right?

This is like that poor guy who went to Aruba and his gf disappeared...his name was Gary Giordano, look him up. He was vilified in the press, and held for about three months, and nothing. The press went crazy with stories, all based upon the police side...stuff made up, but because it got into the mainstream media, everyone took it as gospel.

That's a carbon copy of the Knox case.

Nems wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Yes, it's the same old argument that Fehrman made.  Because a person gets all of the rights they deserves is never a wrong.  It is the comparison that makes it appear that way.

The poor do not receive all of the rights that they deserve because they cannot afford it.  There is always someone, like Mark Ferhman, who will miss the logic of this.

Plus, it appears that Patrick Lumumba has a bit of an ax to grind.  As Raggs said, the press is mostly responsible.  There are enough make-believe stories about the Knox case out there to write a dozen books.

If innocent why did she lie bout Lumumba ? That's what makes me think at the very least she knows more than she is telling. I think she was there when Meredith died. Wasn't she off buying cleaning stuff soon after the murder too?

If guilty, why did she name Lumumba and not Guede? Remember that when she named Lumumba she also said she was there as well, so she incriminated herself. That makes no sense if she's guilty.

I think there was some kind of pressure on her to name him, and she retracted it all very quickly.

If buying cleaning stuff is an indication of guilt, we'd all be guilty of something. In any case, she clearly didn't clean up the crime scene.

Original Quill wrote:

Nems wrote:

If innocent why did she lie bout Lumumba ? That's what makes me think at the very least she knows more than she is telling. I think she was there when Meredith died. Wasn't she off buying cleaning stuff soon after the murder too?

Who said she lied?  The press, right?  

This is like that poor guy who went to Aruba and his gf disappeared...his name was Gary Giordano, look him up.  He was vilified in the press, and held for about three months, and nothing.  The press went crazy with stories, all based upon the police side...stuff made up, but because it got into the mainstream media, everyone took it as gospel.

That's a carbon copy of the Knox case.

Lumumba had an alibi.

On a lighter note, I think she should grow her hair long again - it doesn't suit her short.

Sorry that was a bit random!

Original Quill wrote:

Nems wrote:

If innocent why did she lie bout Lumumba ? That's what makes me think at the very least she knows more than she is telling. I think she was there when Meredith died. Wasn't she off buying cleaning stuff soon after the murder too?

Who said she lied?  The press, right?  

This is like that poor guy who went to Aruba and his gf disappeared...his name was Gary Giordano, look him up.  He was vilified in the press, and held for about three months, and nothing.  The press went crazy with stories, all based upon the police side...stuff made up, but because it got into the mainstream media, everyone took it as gospel.

That's a carbon copy of the Knox case.

She lied when she told police Lamumba killed Meredith