I fucking support Amanda Knox

[rustydog]

Nuff said

[Aerows]

1. I'd like to subscribe to your newsletter n/t

[Laura PourMeADrink]

2. why? I don't because I don't know if she is a killer or not. do you?

[freshwest]

13. He may be going by the last page of the Rolling Stones article. It claims the 'missing scene' of the

murder led to the conviction of another person already:

There are many theories, but the most persuasive scenario goes as follows:

Guede stakes out the cottage after dark. He breaks into the girls' apartment and makes himself comfortable. He swigs orange juice from a carton he finds in the refrigerator — he had a spicy kebab for dinner — and then uses the bathroom. While he's on the can, Kercher enters the apartment, locking the door behind her. Guede is trapped. He can't exit through the window without alerting Kercher, and he can't use the front door, because you need a key to open the lock from the inside. (Kercher's keys would be stolen, along with cash, credit cards and phones.) Guede rises from the toilet without flushing, so as not to make a noise. He walks to Kercher's bedroom. Perhaps he tries to explain himself — "Sorry, the door was open, I let myself in, I'm a friend of Giacomo's downstairs" — or perhaps she starts screaming before he can speak. He grabs her by the mouth (there were bruises on Kercher's face) and threatens her with the knife. He assaults her and, realizing that Kercher can identify him, he panics and kills her. The missing scene.

He was convicted, but when his mandatory appeal was made, he implicated Knox:

During his appeal process, Guede, who had been convicted in a separate trial of murdering Kercher and sentenced to 30 years, changed his story multiple times. In a final reversal, he claimed that he was at the murder scene with Knox and Sollecito, and the judge reduced his sentence to 16 years. This hurt Knox and Sollecito's chances on appeal. If Judge Hellmann decides to acquit, he will not only defy the judge of the first trial, but also the judges who concluded that Guede, Knox and Sollecito acted together. The system is designed to thwart such embarrassments. The pressure on the judge is especially high in a case that has brought international disdain to the entire Italian judicial system. This is why many Italians expect Hellmann to follow the precedent set by Guede's case, and reduce Knox's and Sollecito's sentences each by eight years. Italian honor would be preserved, and with time off for good behavior, Knox would be released in time to be a mom.

http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/the-neverending-nightmare-of-amanda-knox-20110627?page=7

The article is a bit too flowery, which makes it suspect. What struck me was that Guede was convicted. No matter what the true narrative is that seems established. I wasn't interested in this case all this time. The way the Italian legal system was described sounds very odd to me.

The family of the girl who murdered wants justice. From the RS article, her death was savage and cruel.

[pnwmom]

19. Did you know that shortly after Guede changed his statement to implicate Knox

his sentence was reduced from 30 years to 16? The prosecution says that has nothing to do with him changing his story. Does that pass the smell test?

I understand that the family of the girl who was murdered wants justice. They got it when Guede was sentenced to 30 years. Now, unfortunately, he's set to be released this year, after only 8 years in prison. Does that sound like justice to you? He's the only one who left any traces of his presence in the bloody murder room, including his DNA inside and on the victim's body.

There are much better sources than the Rolling Stone article. This article, by a retired FBI agent named Stephen Moore, was more convincing to me. His main point is that all of the dozens of pieces of physical evidence in the bloody murder room were connected to Rudy Guede -- and that if two other murderers were involved, they also would have had to leave traces of themselves behind.

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/FBI2.html

The Mountain of Missing Evidence

In the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case, we have a conflict between an implausibly small amount of highly suspect “evidence” that is alleged to be at the scene vs. a vast amount of missing evidence that would have HAD to be at the scene if Amanda and Raffaele had participated at all, and even more so if they had participated in the way the prosecutors allege. While the prosecution’s evidence is scant, contrived and likely non-existent; the mountain of missing evidence is absolutely overwhelming and compelling. And they both can’t be right because they are mutually exclusive.

If Amanda and Raffaele had actually killed Meredith in company with Rudy Guede, the following evidence WOULD have been there:

BLOOD TRANSFER
1. Meredith’s room would have been filled with the bloody footprints, handprints and smears of THREE PEOPLE, not one.

In the world of homicide (and other) investigations, law enforcement officials and prosecutors use the word “transfer”. Transfer is what it sounds like; the transfer of physical evidence from one person to another. Transfer is especially prevalent in murders (especially by stabbing) and rape. The nature of this case indicates that it would have the MOST transfer of any type of case.

2/3 of the required evidence missing, means 2/3 of the people were not there.

If the prosecution’s story is true, we are missing all credible evidence of the participation of, or even presence of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito in the cottage at the time of the murder.

SNIP

[freshwest]

23. The RS article is the first I've read. As I said, I was never interested. I'm just chatting.

As to your questions:

Did you know that shortly after Guede changed his statement to implicate Knox his sentence was reduced from 30 years to 16?

Yes, that's in the RS article. I had never heard about him before reading that. If the court found that he wasn't a lone killer, it seems reasonable.

The prosecution says that has nothing to do with him changing his story.

I don't follow. I'm only talking about him being convicted first and then Amanda, IIRC.

Does that pass the smell test?

Which smell test, what part?

I'm only interested in what was decided. I don't think I'll ever know the truth. Amanda also accused her boss for some reason - do you think he was involved?

That goes to her credibility, but the story fits with the first guy who was convicted. The reasons add up as to why he freaked and killed her if he was robbing the place. He had trouble before.

But I see no motive for Knox or her boyfriend to slaughter this young lady. And no good one for the burglar to kill, but then I'm not into robbing. It surely does happen at times.

I understand that the family of the girl who was murdered wants justice. They got it when Guede was sentenced to 30 years. Now, unfortunately, he's set to be released this year, after only 8 years in prison. Does that sound like justice to you?

I'd say he likely did the crime. his getting out doesn't sound right to me. And I have no read anything from the family of the murderered girl as to who they believe did the crime. I still see no motive for Knox or her boyfriend.

But I am not the Italian justice system, though. I seriously doubt she will be forced to go back to italy. She might want to avoid Europe.

Peace Out.

[pnwmom]

27. Unfortunately, Kercher's family didn't attend the first appeals trial, where the evidence

against Amanda and Raffaele was demolished, so they cling to the prosecutor's version of the crime.

Also, they filed a $12 million dollar civil suit against Amanda, Raffaele, and Guede, which ran at the same time as Amanda's and Raffaele's criminal trial, with the same jury. I don't think THEY are motivated by money, but their attorney is. He won't get paid if Guede's the only murderer because Guede has no assets. Raffaele comes from a wealthy family and Amanda made money from her book deal (though it all went to legal costs), so they're the deep pockets in this case.

Amanda was pushed by the police during an overnight interrogation to "imagine" that her boss had been there. She finally imagined that she was in the kitchen with her hands over her ears and that he was in the other room with Meredith. A few hours later, after some sleep, she wrote out a new statement saying that what she'd imagined felt like a dream, not something real. So no, there's no reason to think that her boss was ever involved. The police just thought that because they were looking for a black man -- and he was black, and his phone number was on Amanda's cell.

[pnwmom]

18. There is enough reasonable doubt to fly a 777 through. Is that good enough?

What do you require to know if someone is a killer or not?

Here's the bottom line:

Small murder room, covered in blood.

The day after the murder, dozens of physical pieces of evidence are collected from the blood-splattered room, including DNA (inside and on the victim's body) and fingerprints.

Every single piece of evidence collected that day is linked to one man: Rudy Guede, a man who in the past few weeks burglarized three other residences, armed with a knife.

There is not a single speck of evidence and not a single witness putting Amanda in the room.

Six weeks later, since they had failed to find any evidence connecting one of the students to the murder room, the police go back. They film themselves picking up a bra clasp from a pile of rubbish and passing it from one visibly dirty glove to another. Later, the independent court appointed experts say it was so contaminated, it had enough DNA to make several male profiles; that there was so much contamination, even the judge's DNA could have been found. So out went the only piece of evidence that could possibly have been linked to Raffaele.

The prosecution argued that the reason the room had dozens of pieces of evidence connected to Rudy Guede and zero to Amanda or Raffaele was that Amanda and Raffaele had cleaned the room of all their traces, while leaving only those of Guede. That they somehow cleaned up their own invisible DNA and their own invisible fingerprints.

Do you think that passes the stink test? I don't.

Can you think of a way Amanda and Raffaele were involved in a violent fight, ending in death, with Meredith, without being in the room? Without leaving any DNA on her body or clothing? Without getting any of her blood or DNA on their clothing?

Do you really not see that -- not matter how big a case of smoke and mirrors the prosecution presented -- they will never overcome reasonable doubt?

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/FBI2.html

By retired FBI agent Stephen Moore:

In the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case, we have a conflict between an implausibly small amount of highly suspect “evidence” that is alleged to be at the scene vs. a vast amount of missing evidence that would have HAD to be at the scene if Amanda and Raffaele had participated at all, and even more so if they had participated in the way the prosecutors allege. While the prosecution’s evidence is scant, contrived and likely non-existent; the mountain of missing evidence is absolutely overwhelming and compelling. And they both can’t be right because they are mutually exclusive.

If Amanda and Raffaele had actually killed Meredith in company with Rudy Guede, the following evidence WOULD have been there:

BLOOD TRANSFER
1. Meredith’s room would have been filled with the bloody footprints, handprints and smears of THREE PEOPLE, not one.

In the world of homicide (and other) investigations, law enforcement officials and prosecutors use the word “transfer”. Transfer is what it sounds like; the transfer of physical evidence from one person to another. Transfer is especially prevalent in murders (especially by stabbing) and rape. The nature of this case indicates that it would have the MOST transfer of any type of case.

2/3 of the required evidence missing, means 2/3 of the people were not there.

If the prosecution’s story is true, we are missing all credible evidence of the participation of, or even presence of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito in the cottage at the time of the murder.

SNIP

[bravenak]

3. I do too.

The poop theory just doesn't make sense to me. Neither does the satanic sex ritual theory. And the disappearing DNA strikes me as strange.

[Aerows]

7. The "evidence" is just weird

and seems like a puzzle put together from about 4 different boxes.

[bravenak]

8. It would be nice if it made a bit of sense.

It seems like they already have the guy who killed her in jail. I don't know why they think it was a team effort.

[pnwmom]

20. They didn't want to admit they were wrong when they arrested Amanda and Raffaele with much fanfare,

saying that they could tell they were guilty just by looking at them. (They honestly said that. One of them said he knew it as soon as he saw Amanda eating pizza after the murder -- an Italian woman would have been at home crying.)

But they'd always thought a black man had been part of the scenario because of a black fiber they had found (which turned out not to be hair, but whatever.) And, conveniently, Amanda had a black boss, so they pulled him into the story.

Then, OOPS -- all the DNA, fingerprints, etc. match ANOTHER black man. And Amanda's boss had a concrete alibi. So they swapped Amanda's boss for the other black man, a guy who happened to be a burglar who carried a knife; but they kept beautiful Amanda and her geeky boyfriend in the scenario, even though there wasn't a speck of evidence at that point linking either of them to the murder room or the victim's body. The fourth member of the sex-game-group, the black man linked to the DNA and fingerprints, had never even met Raffaele, and had only met Amanda once, but who cares! The story was so much more titillating with the beautiful American and her geeky boyfriend.

And all this publicity was so good for Mignini, the prosecutor, who was then under indictment for some annoying charges of falsification of evidence. Much better to have all the town's anger focused on the Satanic American and her slavishly adoring Italian boyfriend.

[NightWatcher]

4. If this were Teh Lounge

I'd arrange a couple o words and .....

[rustydog]

5. Woa there pardner

It took me a minute...

[NightWatcher]

6. She's hot and there's the crazy sex angle

[pnwmom]

21. Yes, the Italians were titillated by that, too.

It didn't matter that it was nothing but a bunch of sick lies.

[freshwest]

9. I fucking support Barack Obama! Got a meme going here! Yup. n/t

[struggle4progress]

10. "She kinda cute, so let's all overlook her tryin to pin the murder on her boss, Patrick Lumumba,

and tellin the police she was there when Lumumba killed Meredith Kercher. OK, sure, that wasn't quite true: Lumumba didn't have nothin to do with it. But we oughta all just put that outta mind now, cuz after all, Amanda's a purdy lil white girl from America -- and Lumumba, well, not to put to fine a point on it, but he ain't. So I think it's just awful unforgivin for him to keep grumpin about how he feels she slandered him and such. It was a mistake: let it go, boy! And plus, don't get me started on them Italians: that whole country is a joke and everybody in it"

[freshwest]

14. Yeah that really does go against her in my book... n/t

[pnwmom]

22. freshwest, please read my post #15, below. Thanks!

[pnwmom]

15. She didn't "try" to do that, as has been pointed out over and over.

The police had a fiber that they mistakenly thought was the hair of a black man, and they knew that Amanda worked for a black man. So while they were interrogating her without an attorney -- overnight, with more than a dozen cops tag teaming her -- they checked out her cell and found the number for her boss, Lumumba. Then they harangued her for hours, insisting that Lumumba had been at the house with Amanda and Meredith and that Amanda had to remember that. One of the policewomen punctuated her demands with whacks on the back of the head. So Amanda, exhausted and pushed to the limits of her endurance, finally signed the statement they wrote out for her, in Italian. Hours later, she asked for a paper and wrote out a second statement in English in which she said the first one felt like a dream, not real, and that they shouldn't rely on it.

She was a 20 year old being tag teamed by more than a dozen hardened cops and she cracked. And she's hardly the first person who ever told the police what they wanted to hear just to get an interrogation to stop.

She didn't TRY to accuse Lumumba of being in the cottage; she finally broke down and said what the police were pushing her to say -- which she regretted and tried to fix as soon as she got a few hours of sleep.

Did she behave perfectly? No. But no one knows how they'll behave in a difficult situation till it happens. I don't think what happened to that 20 year old was very unusual or any sign of guilt. Think about it. If she HAD been there with Guede, the logical person to point the finger at would have been GUEDE. She could have said they just encountered Guede there and he ran off. The only reason she would cave in and tell the police she could "imagine" Lumumba with Meredith was because Amanda had NOT been there and that's what the police were insisting on -- so Amanda thought maybe it had happened after all.

[freshwest]

25. That's all obvious; I suggest you tell s4p about it. My statement was neutral on that post, but

I did ask the question of you higher up, it would have been better if you'd answered me up there.

I know full well what can be done to someone by police.

And the RS article was very sympathetic to her.

I got it from Fred's first thread that he got locked out of. He was very definite that she was guilty, a party girl and also a sex fiend.

I doubt all of that stuff, and the Satanic murder ritual one of the state actors claimed. There is a lot of weirdness in this case.

As I said above, I don't believe AK will ever go back to Italy and will not be jailed again.

So for me, the alleged danger for her is a moot point. She has refused to go back to Italy and no one can make her.

G'night.

[pnwmom]

30. She is in real danger, in my opinion. Legal experts are sharply divided on whether she will

be extradited or not. I wish I could be as certain as you.

I feel worse, of course, for Raffaele. He spent four years in prison because he refused to cooperate with the police and falsely implicate Amanda. Now what will he do to stay out of prison?

[struggle4progress]

29. The courts can sort out exactly why she and her boyfriend changed their stories:

I don't need to form any detailed opinion on the matter

[pnwmom]

31. If you don't intend to form any detailed opinion on the matter, why not stay out of the discussions

instead of spouting off things that aren't true?

[struggle4progress]

33. She made at least three separate statements to the police, blaming the murder on Lumumba

You're welcome, I suppose, to regard that as something other than an effort on her part to blame her boss for the murder, but that's an odd take IMO

[pnwmom]

36. She made confused and confusing statements, under pressure by the police.

The first:

"I met Patrik immediately afterward, at the basketball court on Piazza Grimana, and together we went [to my] home. I do not recall whether Meredith was there or arrived afterward. I struggle to remember those moments, but Patrik had sex with Meredith, with whom he was infatuated, but I do not recall whether Meredith had been threatened beforehand. I recall confusedly that he killed her."

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/145Statement.pdf

The second:

"I wish to spontaneously report what happened because this case has deeply disturbed me and I am very afraid of Patrick, the African owner if the pub called 'Le Chic' on Via Alessi where I occasionally work. I met him on the evening of the first of November, after having sent him a message replying to his, with the words 'see you' ['ci vediamo', lit. "we'll see each other"].

"We met immediately afterward around 9:00 pm at the basketball court on Piazza Grimana. We went to my house at Via Della Pergola no. 7. I do not recall exactly whether my friend Meredith was already home or if she arrived later, [but] what I can say is that Patrik and Meredith went off to Meredith's room, while it seems to me that I stayed in the kitchen. I cannot recall how much time they stayed together in the room but can only say that at a certain point I heard Meredith screaming and I, frightened, covered my ears. Then I don't remember anything anymore, I am very confused in my head. I do not recall whether Meredith was screaming and if [I? she?](*) also heard thuds [tonfi] because I was involved, but I was imagining what could have happened.



http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/545Statement.pdf

Handwritten statement:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1570225/Transcript-of-Amanda-Knoxs-note.html

SNIP

In regards to this "confession" that I made last night, I want to make clear that I'm very doubtful of the verity of my statements because they were made under the pressures of stress, shock and extreme exhaustion. Not only was I told I would be arrested and put in jail for 30 years, but I was also hit in the head when I didn't remember a fact correctly. I understand that the police are under a lot of stress, so I understand the treatment I received.

However, it was under this pressure and after many hours of confusion that my mind came up with these answers. In my mind I saw Patrik in flashes of blurred images. I saw him near the basketball court. I saw him at my front door. I saw myself cowering in the kitchen with my hands over my ears because in my head I could hear Meredith screaming. But I've said this many times so as to make myself clear: these things seem unreal to me, like a dream, and I am unsure if they are real things that happened or are just dreams my head has made to try to answer the questions in my head and the questions I am being asked.

But the truth is, I am unsure about the truth and here's why:

1. The police have told me that they have hard evidence that places me at the house, my house, at the time of Meredith's murder. I don't know what proof they are talking about, but if this is true, it means I am very confused and my dreams must be real.

2. My boyfriend has claimed that I have said things that I know are not true. I KNOW I told him I didn't have to work that night. I remember that moment very clearly. I also NEVER asked him to lie for me. This is absolutely a lie. What I don't understand is why Raffaele, who has always been so caring and gentle with me, would lie about this. What does he have to hide? I don't think he killed Meredith, but I do think he is scared, like me. He walked into a situation that he has never had to be in, and perhaps he is trying to find a way out by disassociating himself with me.

Honestly, I understand because this is a very scary situation.


__________________

As for #2 above, the police were lying to Amanda about what Raffaele was saying to them; hence, her confusion.

[Codeine]

78. I never agree with this poster

but struggleforprogress just hit it outta the park.

[Demo_Chris]

11. I don't. Knox lied so often she makes Casey Anthony look credible...

http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Main_Page

[pnwmom]

16. Funny that you maintain Amanda's lying, but you keep posting from a site that is filled with lies.

The answers to those lies are here:

www.murderofmeredithkercher.com

[Demo_Chris]

83. Thanks, I will read it over as I get time. nt

[Warren DeMontague]

12. "I don't like her, so she should go to prison!"

That seems to be the gist of it. Plus, people are pissed off about a whole bunch of extraneous stuff and she's a convenient place to work that shit out.

[pnwmom]

17. +1. n/t

[Nuclear Unicorn]

84. This is an actual exchange I had, my words are in bold text --

What I KNOW happened, and no one seems to dispute this, is that some spoiled and affluent privileged teen beauty went to Italy and went absolutely nuts with partying.

And that's probably all that matters for you. She's affluent and attractive so to Hell with her. She's had it too good for too long it's time she suffer like the common people and only a dubious murder conviction will bring social justice. She'll get her comeuppance!

No, that's a fringe benefit.

----

Whatever the facts of the case may be that is not justice. It's a perversion and it's sad to realize people with these attitudes vote and serve on real juries.

[Violet_Crumble]

24. I fucking couldn't give a shit...

I've got better things in life to support than some self-entitled, privileged American who may or may not have murdered another girl.

[Skittles]

26. the justice or injustice afforded any American overseas

is always something to care about, regardless of their station in life

[Violet_Crumble]

28. Why should I care because it's an American?

I dunno, maybe I should have cared about Shapelle Corby, coz that's a bit closer to home, but I was pretty 'meh' about that whole thing as well...

Now, global warming, foreign wars, anti-choicers trying to take women's rights away, and that sort of thing, and then I care and I care a lot...

[Skittles]

34. ooooookay then

[Violet_Crumble]

37. I know it must come as a shock that a foreigner may not give a shit...

But that's the way it is

[pnwmom]

35. Whether it happens here or elsewhere, every time we learn about a case where someone's

rights were denied in a very serious way, and we decide it doesn't matter, we're helping to chip away at all of our rights.

[Violet_Crumble]

38. I've never seen you post once about Rachel Corrie...

And I must have missed the avalanche of outraged posts about the US detaining 'terrorists' in Gitmo a few years back. I guess that outrage is very selective...

[pnwmom]

45. Unlike some people, I try not to post thoughtless things about subjects I'm not familiar with.

I don't expect everyone to know or care about Amanda Knox. Just not to post idiotic things about her from a position of determined ignorance.

[Violet_Crumble]

48. You didn't answer the question I asked. Where's all yr posts on Rachel Corrie and Gitmo?

I was kind of expecting an answer to that question rather than being abused and told I say thoughtless things, blah blah. I assumed that if as you said you cared about all cases, you'd have posted a fair bit on those. If not, fine.

[pnwmom]

50. Sorry, but this is a thread about Amanda Knox. You're not going to succeed in distracting me. n/t

[Violet_Crumble]

54. I must have misread you in the post where I thought you talked about all cases...

Whether it happens here or elsewhere, every time we learn about a case where someone's....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4425035

Okay, gotcha. Yr only talking about one case. My mistake!

[pnwmom]

61. I must have misread you when you said you don't care about Amanda Knox.

But you can't seem to stop posting in this thread.

[Violet_Crumble]

65. You did, because I didn't say that in the post yr replying to...

The post you replied to was in response to you claiming I was distracting you by talking about other cases and I pointed out that you'd actually been the one who talked about other cases and provided you with a link to it.

As for what you just said, I answered it here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4425090

[pnwmom]

69. I was referring to your statement above. "I fucking couldn't give a shit."

What a crock.

[Violet_Crumble]

71. This may be a zany suggestion...

..but DU gives us the ability to read a post and if we want to say something about that post, hit reply and it appears directly under the post we wanted to say something about. You should try it out sometime.

If you go and hit reply to the post of mine that you claim yr talking about, I'll give bonus points if you correctly state what it was I said I don't give a fuck about. Hint, read the OP before guessing!

[pnwmom]

72. You're burying yourself deeper and deeper in that pile of yours. n/t

[Violet_Crumble]

74. I'm intrigued. How so? Or are you replying to another post somewhere else in the thread? n/t

[Downtown Hound]

88. Rachel Corrie was brutally murdered and Gitmo is a sham of justice and a sick demented thing that

should be closed and those responsible for its creation should spend the rest of their days in a cell. There, I have now talked about both of them. Can we go back to Amanda Knox now?

[Downtown Hound]

85. So because you've never seen somebody post something about a girl murdered more than a decade ago

on an internet forum that literally has thousands of posts every day that means that they are automatically being selective in their outrage? Okay, let me list every injustice that's EVER happened and people that I think got a bum rap in the hopes that I have now earned the privilege of posting about Amanda Knox with you:

Leonard Peltier
Mumia Abu-Jamal
Lori Berenson
Rachel Corrie
Lynne Stewart
Schapelle Corby
All the people murdered in Iraq by the Bush crime cartel
All the people murdered in Afghanistan by the Bush crime cartel
All the people murdered on 9-11 by whoever the fuck did it, Al-Queda, our government, the Saudis, whoever
All the people affected by global warming
Anybody who's ever been racially profiled
Anybody who's ever gone to jail for marijuana
Anybody who's ever gone to jail for engaging in consensual homosexual activity

I'm sure there's plenty of people that I missed, so I guess that means I can not now nor can I ever comment on the injustice perpetuated against Amanda Knox according to you. Because to do so would make me "selective" in my outrage. But for what it's worth, I think the case against her is downright medieval in terms of how backwards it is and what a sham of justice it is, and I fully support her. One day, I only hope I can remember everybody in all of human history that's been the victim of injustice and promptly post about them on DU for you to see so that I can post about Amanda Knox here and not be selective in my outrage.

[pnwmom]

32. The things that happened to her could happen to anyone, anywhere.

She was denied an attorney during an overnight interrogation where she was tag teamed by more than a dozen police, and whacked on the back of the head to help her "remember."

She was denied an impartial translator.

Her interrogation wasn't taped, though the room was fully equipped with taping equipment and was used to tape all the other subject's interrogations.

She was an ordinary girl from a middle class neighborhood, with two working parents (her mother a teacher), attending a state university, who saved money over the summers to be able to spend a term in Italy -- where she immediately got a job to help pay expenses.

So where are you getting this "self-entitled, privileged" shit? From the hate sites?

[Violet_Crumble]

39. I just discovered there's something I care less about than her...

It's someone who's put her up on a pedestal ignoring that I said I don't give a shit about what happens to her lecturing me about how I should not only give a shit, but wholeheartedly swallow what the pedestal-placer is saying without question and then proceeding to try to argue with me about something I couldn't give a shit about. I just haven't got the interest or enough hours in the day to go around fact checking what someone on the internet tells me. Maybe you could draw on what must be, based on yr interest in this one case about an American woman, a deep expertise on the Shapelle Corby case and tell me all about how she was wrongly imprisoned and it wasn't her boogey-board? I paid some attention to that one in the early stages till the screeching and generally racist masses overran it, so I can sit and nod or shake my head, depending on what you say?

Sorry, but yr just going to have to live with the knowledge that given a choice between reading an article about Amanda Knox and reading an article about how we're going with the cricket, the cricket will win hands down every time. Unless she moves away from doing the US talk show circuit and embarks on a singing career. Then I'll care and be quite opinionated about whether or not she actually has any talent or is just milking it. Or if it becomes an episode of 'Banged Up Abroad'. I'll watch that...

btw, the US media circus hasn't translated well to foreign shores in this case, at least shores that aren't Italy. A check of my go-to source for news here has any mention of it buried well down in the international news section and today's big news is that a baby elephant was born at the Melbourne Zoo. Yay! No, seriously. I think the Australian media may need a stern talking to about how little they're showing they're caring...

http://www.theage.com.au/

[davidn3600]

40. Then trash the thread and move the fuck on!

No one is forcing you to click on this topic.

[Violet_Crumble]

42. Uh, why?

Last time I checked I can read and respond to what I want. Have things changed since I last checked into DU this morning?

Thanks for the polite suggestion, but I'm not a trash thread person and don't think I'll start just because you demand I do...

[leftynyc]

43. And yet here you are

And not only showing up but passing judgement about a "privileged" American showing no knowledge of what you're ranting about and when called on that you change the subject to state how far above it you are. That's some high comedy.

[pnwmom]

46. +1. n/t

[Violet_Crumble]

47. Last time I checked, I was allowed to disagree with an OP...

'Ranting'? And what was I supposedly called upon and where did I state I was above something?

I pointed out that I didn't give a shit what the OP supported or not and thought there were far better things to support. I guess it sucks that it upset some so badly, but that's how I see it...

Have a nice day!

[leftynyc]

57. LOL - I never claimed you

couldn't disagree but stating you'd rather watch cricket is a pretty blatant way of saying you're above this story and you had already asked why you should care about this "privileged" American. Nobody disputes there are other things far more worthy of support and attention. You just got caught making a judgement about something you didn't know about. Owning that would be refreshing.

[Violet_Crumble]

60. The 'and yet here you are' kind of hints otherwise...

And stating that if given a choice, I'd choose reading an article about how our cricket team's going isn't a blatant way of saying anything other than I'd chose to read that article.

And, yes. I did ask someone why they'd expect someone who's not an American to care when it comes to Americans who get arrested/incarcerated etc overseas, though I suspect they didn't realise I wasn't an American. That's not making any judgement, that's just calling it how I see it, and not as you put it a 'rant'. I've been quite clear that I don't claim to have any great knowledge of that case, or as you put it 'something you didn't know about', but I think I saw you say the same thing yrself downthread.

[pnwmom]

44. If you don't give a shit, why do you bother with multiple posts in a thread about her?

You sure spent a lot of time and effort writing all those words, for someone who doesn't give a shit.

[Violet_Crumble]

52. If you go back and read, you'll get yr answer...

I posted initially saying I didn't give a shit about whether or not someone at DU supported her. Then I got told I should care because she's an American. And I admitted I'm not really set in synch with the US media circus circuit and am lacking in enough interest or deep enough knowledge to get outraged one way or the other. I'm not really seeing crime of the century material here, though replying to anyone who replies to me is a thing I do generally, and maybe I shouldn't. Also, am I going to get yelled at and told my posts are thoughtless when I show an interest in any extradition proceedings and how they pan out? Because extradition stuff is what does interest me, and not just in this specific case...

[Packerowner740]

82. Well aren't you special

[snooper2]

87. you gave enough of a shit to reply to the thread LOL

at least just a little bit of shit...mouse vs cat, or cat vs horse?

[leftynyc]

41. From what I've seen

it was a weak circumstantial case but I didn't follow it closely and was obviously not on the jury. My objection - and I have no idea if this is purely because I'm an American and it's ingrained - is double jeopardy. Being able to try a person twice for the same crime just feels wrong.

[pnwmom]

49. Their argument is that they "annulled" the first appeals trial, so it legally never took place.

How convenient.

But it certainly looks like two bites of the apple to me. In the US, it is possible for an appeals verdict to be overturned -- but on procedural grounds, not evidentiary grounds. In this case, the first appeals court ruled that there was "no evidence" against Amanda and Raffaele, so it does seem like double jeopardy to me (the high court called for more evidence).

Also, this trial had a brand new motive -- unflushed poop -- and a new theory of the crime -- no longer a sex game gone wrong, but anger building to murderous rage, with a sexual assault thrown in. How can it be one trial with two motives and two theories of the crime?

[leftynyc]

55. The whole idea

of the prosecution getting a "do-over" when it comes to someone's liberty is simply wrong. Will that, on occasion, allow a guilty person to go free? Probably. Tough shit - bring a better case and get your shit together before you put someone on trial. Watching the Italian justice system has been quite an eye opener.

[AngryOldDem]

51. They weren't going to quit until they got the verdict they wanted. n/t

[dipsydoodle]

53. She wasn't tried for the same crime twice.

She was found guilty at the trial. A later appeal which found her innocent was set aside on points of law by the Court of Cassation / Supreme Court.

This weeks verdict was on the new appeal which confirmed the original finding - guilty as charged.

Doubtless her lawyers will take it back to the Court of Cassation who once again will consider only points of law that being its purpose.

[leftynyc]

56. I understand what the Italian justice

system did to her. Here in the US, it wouldn't happen unless there's a mistrial. Because of that, I think any extradition request should be met with "pound sand".

[dipsydoodle]

58. Doesn't really matter

as long as she stays in the US or at least doesn't go to any country where the EU has an extradition treaty.

[BainsBane]

66. The US has extradition agreements with Italy

I saw one article with legal experts saying they thought the US would honor a request for extradition. What will actually happen, I have no idea.

[Violet_Crumble]

67. It'll be interesting...

I read that the US would only be likely to refuse an extradition request if they thought there was a miscarriage of justice involved. I know that just because there are extradition treaties, it doesn't mean they're automatically carried out in each case. Many countries, including my own, will refuse to extradite anyone to the US who's been charged with a crime where there's a possibility of the death sentence being imposed...

[BainsBane]

68. I think many countries take that position for extradition to the US

and insist on legal assurance that the death penalty will not be imposed. There have been a number of cases involving Mexico where that has occurred. I applaud that position. The death penalty is barbaric and a national shame.

[Violet_Crumble]

73. Yeah, I think it's a common stance with most countries that don't have the death penalty...

A case a few years ago here where a guy from the US killed his wife was one where Australia refused to extradite unless the US removed the death penalty as a possible sentence. The US agreed and he was extradited, but I did wonder what would have happened if they'd refused, coz while I strongly oppose the death penalty, he needed to spend the rest of his life in prison if he was convicted (which I think he may have been)...

[leftynyc]

89. The US could turn her over

I heard the process for extradition this morning and it sounds like it would take a couple of years and that (surprising to me) the Secretary of State makes that final judgement.

[pnwmom]

63. Yes , actually they did try her three times for the same crime.

Unlike in the US, new evidence was introduced in both the second and third level trials. The judges didn't consider only matters of law.

They can say the first appeal was "annulled" and pretend it didn't ever happen, but the US doesn't have to accept that reasoning. The fact is that they conducted two separate appeals trials with two different motives and two different theories of how the crime occurred. There is no way that would ever be allowed in the US under double jeopardy laws.

Italy has a system where there could be literally any number of trials and it wouldn't be called double jeopardy. But the US doesn't have to accept their reasoning about this, especially when different motives and different theories of the crime are used in multiple trials.

(Also, the previous CC ruling didn't follow the rule of only considering points of law; it considered evidence. But I guess you're assuming they'll follow the rules this time.)

[dipsydoodle]

64. As the crime was committed in another country

the US Constitution , laws and rules have no meaning other than for the sake of comparison.

[pnwmom]

70. That's not true when it comes to extradition requests. The rights guaranteed by the Constitution

trump treaties.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/31/us-usa-knox-extradition-idUSBREA0U1T920140131

"She has powerful legal arguments that she can use to fight extradition, or the U.S. can use to deny extradition," said Sean Casey, a New York-based former federal prosecutor. "Under the law, the Constitution trumps a treaty."

[ChairmanAgnostic]

59. Are the title words in the right order?

[dipsydoodle]

62. Yes an unfortunate turn of phrase

despite which I wouldn't anyway.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

86. might be hazardous to one's health.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

75. I support letting justice take its course.

I don't know whether she's guilty or not.

As far as I can tell, the widespread certainty among Americans that she is not is based largely on national prejudice, not on objective analysis of the evidence. That does not, though, mean that objective analysis of the evidence might not cast reasonable doubt on her guilt.

But I think that the right answer is to let the legal system take its course. It occasionally results in an innocent person going to jail; it very often indeed results in a guilty one going free. But the weighted average of those outcomes is lower than with any other approach.

[etherealtruth]

77. Well said

[pnwmom]

81. Many of us have actually read extensively, including all the court documents,

while making up our minds. Our views aren't based on national prejudice. In fact, I assumed she was guilty before I dug into the case a year after it began.

Here's where my reasonable doubt lies. How could Amanda have murdered Meredith without being in the same room with her? Without exchanging any DNA or blood on each other's clothing? How is it that the murder room was covered in blood and yielded dozens of pieces of physical evidence, but they were all linked to the burglar, Rudy Guede? How could none of the traces be linked to Amanda? It couldn't. She couldn't have been involved in a violent murder and left not a trace of herself in a bloody room that was full of traces of Rudy Guede. Not unless you believe the prosecution's claim that Amanda cleaned the bloody room of all traces of her own invisible DNA, fingerprints, etc., while leaving the blood and everything else connected to Guede.

www.murderofmeredithkercher.com

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/FBI2.html

By retired FBI agent Stephen Moore:

In the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case, we have a conflict between an implausibly small amount of highly suspect “evidence” that is alleged to be at the scene vs. a vast amount of missing evidence that would have HAD to be at the scene if Amanda and Raffaele had participated at all, and even more so if they had participated in the way the prosecutors allege. While the prosecution’s evidence is scant, contrived and likely non-existent; the mountain of missing evidence is absolutely overwhelming and compelling. And they both can’t be right because they are mutually exclusive.

If Amanda and Raffaele had actually killed Meredith in company with Rudy Guede, the following evidence WOULD have been there:

BLOOD TRANSFER
1. Meredith’s room would have been filled with the bloody footprints, handprints and smears of THREE PEOPLE, not one.

In the world of homicide (and other) investigations, law enforcement officials and prosecutors use the word “transfer”. Transfer is what it sounds like; the transfer of physical evidence from one person to another. Transfer is especially prevalent in murders (especially by stabbing) and rape. The nature of this case indicates that it would have the MOST transfer of any type of case.

2/3 of the required evidence missing, means 2/3 of the people were not there.

If the prosecution’s story is true, we are missing all credible evidence of the participation of, or even presence of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito in the cottage at the time of the murder.

SNIP

[ann---]

76. I don't

[randome]

79. What is it with all the fourth grade grammar these days?

I thought DU had class.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[mainer]

80. From CNN: journalist writes she's "baffled"

Originally posted over in LBN, but was locked. I think it deserves to be seen.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/31/opinion/burleigh-amanda-knox-verdict/index.html?hpt=hp_t4

[MadrasT]

90. No idea who that is.

Yes, I know I can google it.