Amanda Knox's murder conviction overturned by Italian court

First topic message reminder :

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

I must say though that there are some things which are puzzling.

I've mentioned the footprint on the bath mat before, but that's still a mystery. It was a footprint of a bare foot, and it contained blood, possibly diluted blood. As I said, it might make sense if it had been Amanda's footprint. She had a shower, so she could have stepped in some blood before stepping on the mat, and indeed she did say she used the mat to slide to her bedroom because there were no towels. The prosecution were adamant that the footprint belonged to a larger foot though - a man's foot. It can't have been Rudy's footprint, unless for some reason he took off his right shoe and washed his foot or something. Also, there were no other footprints leading up to that one, which does suggest some kind of clean up of the floor. On the other hand, why clean up some footprints and leave others?

The other puzzling thing is that Meredith's door was locked. According to all the reports I've seen, Rudy's footprints (of his left shoe anyway) led directly out of the room and to the front door. If he locked the door, he couldn't have done that without turning round towards the door.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I think, through no fault of their own, some tragic events visited them.  We can look backward and critique events, but that's us.  I can well imagine they do not want to look back on such an ugly episode in their life...at least for now.

For others—those more detached from it—it is worth analyzing how the system fails, and why.

Tragic? The murder of Amanda's flatmate was tragic. I wouldn't say that being accused by the police, accused by a murderer, hauled up in court, and imprisoned on some rather flimsy evidence was tragic.

And I, personally, would say being falsely accused like that and living for a year or two in a medieval prison is worse.  Keep in mind, the whole up-shot of all of this is that they did not do anything to bring it on.  A Court has finally determined that.

Raggamuffin wrote:I'm not accusing them of anything Quill, I'm just observing that it's probably not over for them. They will think it is at the moment because they're relieved, but I think the sense of injustice will get to them. Remember they lost much of their youth because of this. What should have been a great adventure for Amanda turned into a nightmare.

To what end would you expend so much emotion, so much energy?  If there was something to be gained, and it was wroth it, fine.  But there is no reason to go down that road.

Compare Elizabeth Smart...she found a way of turning her miserable experience into something positive.

Raggamuffin wrote:I must say though that there are some things which are puzzling.

I've mentioned the footprint on the bath mat before, but that's still a mystery. It was a footprint of a bare foot, and it contained blood, possibly diluted blood. As I said, it might make sense if it had been Amanda's footprint. She had a shower, so she could have stepped in some blood before stepping on the mat, and indeed she did say she used the mat to slide to her bedroom because there were no towels. The prosecution were adamant that the footprint belonged to a larger foot though - a man's foot. It can't have been Rudy's footprint, unless for some reason he took off his right shoe and washed his foot or something. Also, there were no other footprints leading up to that one, which does suggest some kind of clean up of the floor. On the other hand, why clean up some footprints and leave others?

The other puzzling thing is that Meredith's door was locked. According to all the reports I've seen, Rudy's footprints (of his left shoe anyway) led directly out of the room and to the front door. If he locked the door, he couldn't have done that without turning round towards the door.

There's nothing to prevent you from writing to her lawyers and asking these questions.  I would suggest her lawyers, because your questions go to matters that a single person many not be able to answer.

Short of that, we will have to trust that all of those questions were answered by the Supreme Court in a comprehensive review of the evidence.  Had they not been able to dispose of every detail of evidence, they would have remanded for further proceedings and findings.  They would not have been able to reverse.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Tragic? The murder of Amanda's flatmate was tragic. I wouldn't say that being accused by the police, accused by a murderer, hauled up in court, and imprisoned on some rather flimsy evidence was tragic.

And I, personally, would say being falsely accused like that and living for a year or two in a medieval prison is worse.  Keep in mind, the whole up-shot of all of this is that they did not do anything to bring it on.  A Court has finally determined that.

Raggamuffin wrote:I'm not accusing them of anything Quill, I'm just observing that it's probably not over for them. They will think it is at the moment because they're relieved, but I think the sense of injustice will get to them. Remember they lost much of their youth because of this. What should have been a great adventure for Amanda turned into a nightmare.

To what end would you expend so much emotion, so much energy?  If there was something to be gained, and it was wroth it, fine.  But there is no reason to go down that road.

Compare Elizabeth Smart...she found a way of turning her miserable experience into something positive.

To me, a tragedy is something that is more accidental. There was nothing accidental about the way they were accused and banged up.

It's human nature to expend energy and emotion on a situation which is unfair. To be unaffected just because it's over would be unnatural. Raffaele has said he will never heal, and I think there must be a lot of anger there which has been repressed until now. He has also said that he will not accept any more accusations from anyone, and he will not put up with being labelled as an assassin. He's being very generous towards the Kerchers though.

He could claim compensation of course - I think I would tbh. It's more difficult for Amanda because she was also convicted of slander. I don't know if she can sue the police for slander though.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:I must say though that there are some things which are puzzling.

I've mentioned the footprint on the bath mat before, but that's still a mystery. It was a footprint of a bare foot, and it contained blood, possibly diluted blood. As I said, it might make sense if it had been Amanda's footprint. She had a shower, so she could have stepped in some blood before stepping on the mat, and indeed she did say she used the mat to slide to her bedroom because there were no towels. The prosecution were adamant that the footprint belonged to a larger foot though - a man's foot. It can't have been Rudy's footprint, unless for some reason he took off his right shoe and washed his foot or something. Also, there were no other footprints leading up to that one, which does suggest some kind of clean up of the floor. On the other hand, why clean up some footprints and leave others?

The other puzzling thing is that Meredith's door was locked. According to all the reports I've seen, Rudy's footprints (of his left shoe anyway) led directly out of the room and to the front door. If he locked the door, he couldn't have done that without turning round towards the door.

There's nothing to prevent you from writing to her lawyers and asking these questions.  I would suggest her lawyers, because your questions go to matters that a single person many not be able to answer.

Short of that, we will have to trust that all of those questions were answered by the Supreme Court in a comprehensive review of the evidence.  Had they not been able to dispose of every detail of evidence, they would have remanded for further proceedings and findings.  They would not have been able to reverse.

Oh well I'm just thinking out loud - if you know what I mean. It's a discussion forum, so I wondered if anyone had any thoughts about those two issues.

She was convicted of slander, it's true. That is not a crime in America...it seems more a tool of a totalitarian regime.

While it can be a civil matter, I think slander should never be used by the state. If it were a crime in this country there would be a lot of conservatives and Republicans in prison.

Original Quill wrote:She was convicted of slander, it's true.  That is not a crime in America...it seems more a tool of a totalitarian regime.  

While it can be a civil matter, I think slander should never be used by the state.  If it were a crime in this country there would be a lot of conservatives and Republicans in prison.

Yes, it must be a criminal offence in Italy. Anyway, she was eventually sentenced to three years for the slander, and that conviction has not been quashed. Therefore, she can't claim anything for those three years.

There was talk of her parents being put on trial for slandering or libelling the police too!

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:She was convicted of slander, it's true.  That is not a crime in America...it seems more a tool of a totalitarian regime.  

While it can be a civil matter, I think slander should never be used by the state.  If it were a crime in this country there would be a lot of conservatives and Republicans in prison.

There was talk of her parents being put on trial for slandering or libelling the police too!

Good luck with that. Lol.

At a time when Italy is going under economically, and the US is the only savior out there, I don't think they want to take another beating in the press like they did with Amanda.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

There was talk of her parents being put on trial for slandering or libelling the police too!

Good luck with that.  Lol.

At a time when Italy is going under economically, and the US is the only savior out there, I don't think they want to take another beating in the press like they did with Amanda.  

It seems a bit unfair that the police can sue people for slandering them, but Amanda can't sue them for accusing her of being a murderer.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Good luck with that.  Lol.

At a time when Italy is going under economically, and the US is the only savior out there, I don't think they want to take another beating in the press like they did with Amanda.  

It seems a bit unfair that the police can sue people for slandering them, but Amanda can't sue them for accusing her of being a murderer.

It's worse...they can criminally prosecute.  But that is what is so dangerous about criminalizing a civil matter.  If you can put people in prison for slander, what's to prevent you from imprisoning your opposition in politics? Plus, what subject is not potentially political? It's virtually an open-ended gun to the head.

That's why I say it is more generally associated with totalitarian regimes.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It seems a bit unfair that the police can sue people for slandering them, but Amanda can't sue them for accusing her of being a murderer.

It's worse...they can criminally prosecute.  But that is what is so dangerous about criminalizing a civil matter.  If you can put people in prison for slander, what's to prevent you from imprisoning your opposition in politics?

That's why I say it is more generally associated with totalitarian regimes.

Yes, although I'm not sure that she was actually prosecuted for slandering the police. She was convicted of slandering Lumumba. I'll have to check.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

It's worse...they can criminally prosecute.  But that is what is so dangerous about criminalizing a civil matter.  If you can put people in prison for slander, what's to prevent you from imprisoning your opposition in politics?

That's why I say it is more generally associated with totalitarian regimes.

Yes, although I'm not sure that she was actually prosecuted for slandering the police. She was convicted of slandering Lumumba. I'll have to check.

I seem to recall it was the police.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Yes, although I'm not sure that she was actually prosecuted for slandering the police. She was convicted of slandering Lumumba. I'll have to check.

I seem to recall it was the police.

I think she might have been convicted of slandering Lumumba, and then later on there was another court case where she was on trial for slandering the police.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/10/amanda-knox-slander-court-date-postponed_n_1505494.html

The only time she could have slandered the police was in court surely.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I seem to recall it was the police.

I think she might have been convicted of slandering Lumumba, and then later on there was another court case where she was on trial for slandering the police.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/10/amanda-knox-slander-court-date-postponed_n_1505494.html

The only time she could have slandered the police was in court surely.

You are right. It was Lumumba:

USA Today wrote:The slander conviction was based on statements Knox made to police in November 2007 when she was being questioned about the slaying of her British roommate, Meredith Kercher, in the house they shared in Perugia.

Knox says she was coerced into making false statements blaming the slaying on bar owner Patrick Lumumba.

.

Correct!


And didn't he tell police that the other two involved were Knox and Soletto...?


And let's not forget the staged burglary and the tidy up in Meredith's room...

Injustice in Perugia wrote:Rudy Guede was a drug dealer that was well known by the police. He became a suspect in the Meredith Kercher murder after his bloody fingerprint was discovered at the crime scene. When police tried to contact Guede they discovered he had fled to Germany. He was stopped in Germany trying to board a train without a ticket and was immediately extradited back to Italy. Guede was confronted with overwhelming DNA evidence that put him at the crime scene at the time if the murder.

Guede lied repeatedly throughout the case, modifying his stories, based on news reports as it best suited his defense. Guede was recorded during a Skype conversation before his arrest telling a friend that the reports on the news were incorrect. He said Amanda Knox was not present the night the crime took place. After his arrest Guede realized he had no way out and repeatedly modified his story to help his own defense.

Guede had his sentence reduced from 30-years, to 16-years.  Only the Italian government can do that.  What did the Italian government get in return, one is immediately compelled to ask?

Ibid wrote:[Guede's] latest story suggests he was being intimate with Meredith in her room when he suddenly needed to use the bathroom. While he was in the bathroom [according to Guede] Amanda and Raffaele came in and murdered Meredith. Of course, none of his stories were accepted as his conviction has been finalized by the Italian Supreme Court.

Guede, who was the actual murderer, is already eligible for work release. as of 2014.  This is the criminal justice system of a totalitarian regime.

Knox lied constantly throughout too... they claimed they were at solecittos apartment on downloading but no internet use... she originally said she was in the apartment and heard the screams!

In a nutshell...HOW did she get off then?

Good question!


There was a staged burglary in another room to make it look like a break in and Merediths room had been given an obvious tidy up, think the door was also locked(?), but blood traces were also found elsewhere and suspicious... as was Knox's behaviour throughout.

Tommy Monk wrote:Good question!


There was a staged burglary in another room to make it look like a break in and Merediths room had been given an obvious tidy up, think the door was also locked(?), but blood traces were also found elsewhere and suspicious... as was Knox's behaviour throughout.

Would love to know how,she managed to walk free tbh

Tommy Monk wrote:Good question!


There was a staged burglary in another room to make it look like a break in and Merediths room had been given an obvious tidy up, think the door was also locked(?), but blood traces were also found elsewhere and suspicious... as was Knox's behaviour throughout.

No tommy...by someone who was there. You are giving us the Italian government's brief, not the facts.

The only source of facts was Guede, the admitted murderer. He gratuitously admitted that Knox had no part in it. But then, when the government smelled red meat, he snatched 14-years off his sentence and, so far as we know, is out and about on work release today.

The Italian prosecutors have forgotten their basic goal: to do justice. Yes it is an adversarial system, but first do justice.

.

strange judicial system in Italy . Guilty not guilty guilty not guilty . It must drive people nuts .

.

@lex wrote:
Quill: on appeal Guede was granted the same generic mitigation as Knox and Sollecito (egs. for youth). At 20, Guede's sentence was reduced to 24 years to match the then 23 yr old  Sollecito... He was then granted an automatic 1/3 reduction (to sixteen years) for opting for a fast-track trial. Precisely the same option was open to Knox and Sollecito, in which case they would have qualified for the same automatic 1/3 reduction.

Ahhh I just figured out who you are.

Welcome back.

Hope you are having a lovley day.

Catch you all later

.

@lex wrote:
Quill: on appeal Guede was granted the same generic mitigation as Knox and Sollecito (egs. for youth). At 20, Guede's sentence was reduced to 24 years to match the then 23 yr old  Sollecito... He was then granted an automatic 1/3 reduction (to sixteen years) for opting for a fast-track trial. Precisely the same option was open to Knox and Sollecito, in which case they would have qualified for the same automatic 1/3 reduction.

Injustice in Perugia wrote:Guede's attorneys did an excellent job of securing the most lenient punishment possible for his crime by convincing the court that Guede was merely an accomplice. Guede received a reduced sentence of 16 years on appeal, of which he will only serve a fraction, leaving many years of freedom in his future. The sad truth is that Guede will be eligible for work release in 2014.

The reduction of the sentence was fit into the fast-track trial for bait and switch appearances.  The same was not offered to Knox or Sollecito.  As I said, the prosecutors saw red meat and manipulated the confession by promise of incentives.

.

.

Knox lied constantly and kept changing her story.

.

.

Cos he's a twat...!?

@lex wrote:Everyone who is tried by fast-track in Italy automatically qualifies for a 1/3 reduction in sentence should they be found guilty. Knox and Sollecito had the same right as Guede to a fast-track trial; they chose not to exercise it.

Of course. And a prosecutor can arrange to steer a case in that direction. Nothing is direct. You don’t use your hands to steer your automobile; there are intervening mechanisms. Nevertheless, the vehicle goes where you want it.

@lex wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

No tommy...by someone who was there.  You are giving us the Italian government's brief, not the facts.

Hmm... Quill: the criminal investigations team that expertly detected Guede's presence at/role in poor Meredith's homicide, tracked him down across Europe to face justice was the same one which concluded  a burglary was also staged at the cottage, to quote Tommy's example. So why would conclude the former is just good policework while the latter is indicative of some Italian Government conspiracy?

Because it is the same criminal investigation team that so mishandled the crime scene evidence.  Credibility matters a lot, particularly when someone fails to live up to the world-wide standards accepted by a professional discipline.  It doesn't have to be a conspiracy by the Italian government to warrant questions.  These are the same people who did this:


Lax discipline is a cultural trait with Italians, as PM Churchill once pointed out so many years ago.  After what I have seen of their mishandling of the evidence in the Knox case, and having been in a position to judge as a prosecutor myself, I would not read from the Italian government's brief in this case.

Discuss the facts...fine.  But the Italian government's brief is a joke...as the appellate courts in Italy have already determined.

.

What is a bit weird is that someone locked Merediths door. It's been said that Guede's footprints led straight out of the front door, and there were no bloody footprints to indicate that someone else turned round to lock the door.