Punchline Magazine Blog » Comedian explains why she organized Amanda Knox comedy show fundraiser - Comedy Blog, Comedy News, and all things in Stand Up Comedy.

Comedian explains why she organized Amanda Knox comedy show fundraiser

1 Feb, 2010 | by Emma Kat Richardson breaking news, news, stand-up

Comedian Renee Perrault organized a comedy benefit for convicted murderer Amanda Knox, whom many people feel was not given a fair trial.

Last week, Punchline Magazine posted a news post on about a comedy fundraiser that was held in Seattle for Amanda Knox, the 22-year-old American college student convicted in Italy of murdering her British roommate. Due to the outcry of fairness, decency, guilt and innocence that this conversation inspired, we decided to contact Renee Perrault, the comedian who organized the event. Here’s what Perrault had to say about the fundraiser, the Knoxes, and the controversy surrounding the court case and guilty verdict.

What prompted you to organize a comedy event, in specific, on Amanda Knox’s behalf?
I have been doing stand-up comedy for three years. I’m in a comedy group and we have done fundraising for Gilda’s Club, Susan B. Komen, breast cancer, MS and Rise N’ Shine for AIDS. A comedy event is something I know how to do and have had success with. We have been criticized for doing a comedy show and people actually suggested or blogged that we were going to make fun of Meredith Kercher and her family. That couldn’t have been farther from the truth. Our intent was to entertain, we did not make jokes about Italy, or any mention of the trial or the Kercher family. The Kercher family has our deepest sympathies. We were just raising money for a cause we believe in.

What did you hope to accomplish with it? Do you feel you met your goals?
My goal was to help the Knox family and raise money for Amanda’s Defense Fund. Yes, that goal was met. We brought people together, entertained them and raised money.

I read online that you’re a friend of the Knoxes. How long have you been acquainted with them? Did they ask you to do this, or did you come up with the idea?
I worked with Curt at Macy’s in the 1980’s when we were still known as The Bon Marche. In those days, before mergers and downsizing, we actually had time for coffee breaks and lunch. There was a group of us that did just that– coffee and lunches; we were work friends. There are people in your life that come and go, sometimes you don’t see them for years but when you do, the friendship is still there. I hadn’t seen Curt in a few years but had followed the trial. It was so hard to watch all of the negative publicity and when the verdict was announced it was just devastating to hear. I approached the Knox family with the idea of a fundraiser. As I said, comedy is what I do now….I really couldn’t think of a better way to raise money. I have gotten to know quite a few local northwest comics and every single one that I approached immediately wanted to be part of the show. The other comics in the show included Xung Lam, John Gardner, Geoff Lott and Billy Wayne Davis.

Amanda Knox

Given the notoriety of the situation, could you tell me something about the Knox family and Amanda that the public might not know?
After months of watching the TV and newspaper coverage I have come to realize that the Knox family is incredibly brave and have put everything on the line to help their daughter, granddaughter, sister, niece, cousin. The entire family, and remember, Amanda’s parents are divorced, have all come together. There is also another layer of “step” family that is working just as hard. We’re always hearing about dysfunctional families, this family has come together and is an example of what a “modern” family is made up of. I don’t know Amanda but have come to know her through the emails her family send to supporters, detailing their visits with her. I think she has demonstrated bravery under constant criticism.

What do you have to say to those out there who believe that Amanda is guilty and received a fair trial?
People are always going to have their opinions. There has been so much in the media: some right, some wrong and some just total sensationalism. Then there are the crazy bloggers who contribute, anonymously of course, all sorts of wrong facts to add fuel to the fire. My opinion is that the evidence presented at the trial was circumstantial at best. If I [say]say all the things that I believe were wrong with the trial, it will release a shit-storm of blogging from the crazy people. I will just say, I have followed the case, and I am convinced, along with many many other people, that Amanda and Raffaele are innocent and the true murderer has been convicted. I believe the next trial will refute whatever findings are presented by the jury.

1,209 Comments so far »

Ava said

am February 1 2010 @ 3:19 pm

She can believe what she wants, the judges in Italy get the final say. Amanda could have ended up like Natalee Holloway – she should be glad she didn’t considering the people she associated with.

her parents should maybe address the drinking and drug problem their daughter has.
Guest said

am February 1 2010 @ 3:21 pm

Renee, like AK parents, probably doesn’t know Amanda as well as she thinks she does.
We will, indeed, see what happens in a year in court.
Guest said

am February 1 2010 @ 3:23 pm

Bad karma. Bad, bad karma.
Sherri said

am February 1 2010 @ 3:58 pm

obviously the comments made before me are by some really shallow minded people…Renee Perrault answered the questions very well and to the same reasoning that so many others feel..That also includes me..thank you for all your efforts for the Knox family and for Amanda.
Harry Rag said

am February 1 2010 @ 4:08 pm

The evidence against Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito is overwhelming.

Amanda Knox’s DNA was found on:

1. On the double DNA knife and a number of independent forensic experts – Dr. Patrizia Stenoni, Dr. Renato Biondo and Professor Francesca Torricelli – categorically stated that Meredith’s DNA was on the blade.

2. Mixed with Meredith’s blood on the ledge of the basin.

3. Mixed with Meredith’s blood on the bidet.

4. Mixed with Meredith blood on a box of Q Tip cotton swabs.

5. Mixed with Meredith’s blood in the hallway.

6. Mixed with Meredith’s blood on the floor of Filomena’s room, where the break-in was staged.

7. On Meredith’s bra according to Raffaele Sollecito’s forensic expert, Professor Vinci and Dr. Stefanoni.

Amanda Knox’s footprints were found set in Meredith’s blood in two places in the hallway of the new wing of the cottage. One print was exiting her own room, and one print was outside Meredith’s room, facing into the room. These bloody footprints were only revealed under luminol.

A woman’s bloody shoeprint, which matched Amanda Knox’s foot size, was found on a pillow under Meredith’s body. The bloody shoeprint was incompatible with Meredith’s shoe size.

Two independent imprint experts categorically excluded the possibility that the bloody footprint on the blue bathmat could belong to Rudy Guede. Lorenzo Rinaldi stated: ““You can see clearly that this bloody footprint on the rug does not belong to Mr. Guede, but you can see that it is compatible with Sollecito.”

The other imprint expert print expert testified that the bloody footprint on the blue bathmat matched the precise characteristics of Sollecito’s foot.

An abundant amount of Raffaele Sollecito’s DNA was found on Meredith’s bra clasp. Meredith’s bra was removed some time after she had been killed and Rudy Guede had fled the scene.

The murder dynamic implicates Knox and Sollecito.

Barbie Nadeau wrote the following:

“Countless forensic experts, including those who performed the autopsies on Kercher’s body, have testified that more than one person killed her based on the size and location of her injuries and the fact that she didn’t fight back—no hair or skin was found under her fingernails.”

Judge Paolo Micheli claimed that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito knew precise details about Meredith’s murder that they could have only known if they were present when she was killed.

Amanda Knox voluntarily admitted that she involved in Meredith’s murder in her handwritten note to the police on 6 November 2007. She stated on at least four separate occasions that she was the cottage when Meredith was killed.

Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito both gave multiple conflicting alibis and lied repeatedly. Their lies were exposed by telephone and computer records, and by CCTV footage. Neither Knox nor Sollecito have credible alibis for the night of the murder despite three attempt each.

Legal expert Stefano Maffei stated the following:

“There were 19 judges who looked at the evidence over the course of two years, faced with decisions on pre-trial detention, review of such detention, committal to trial, judgment on criminal responsibility. They all agreed, at all times, that the evidence was overwhelming.”
John Winters said

am February 1 2010 @ 4:35 pm

Well done Renee Perrault. Comedy was just the thing to redress the balance in favour of Amanda getting a little justice for a change.
Just because the States has hardware which can knock this little globe off its axis and out of orbit does not mean that its individual citizens should be treated as ‘arrogant’ if they cry foul when dealing with people like Mignini abroad.
Apologists should take a reality check because they don’t know when they are being laughed at, and not by Renee Perrault.
maryville said

am February 1 2010 @ 4:36 pm

It is expected that a court of law finds the accused to be guilty only if there is supporting evidence. When there is a lack of a believable motive, no evidence of the accused at the murder scene, and no creditable witnesses, a verdict of ‘guilty’ is laughable!
John Winters said

am February 1 2010 @ 4:37 pm

Just check the previous blog by Harry Rag if you want to know who’s laughing.
maryville said

am February 1 2010 @ 4:38 pm

Harry Rag: Quit spewing your filthy hate. All you do is repeat the prosecution’s disproved case. Yes, the prosecutor is convicted of ‘abuse of office’.
Theo Stanopoulos said

am February 1 2010 @ 4:43 pm

Wonderful night Renee. Loved the one about Jim Kirk.
Sherri said

am February 1 2010 @ 4:44 pm

DNA evidence….what DNA evidence…enough said..
maryville said

am February 1 2010 @ 4:48 pm

harry rag posted: Amanda Knox’s DNA was found on:
1. On the double DNA knife and a number of independent forensic experts – Dr. Patrizia Stenoni, Dr. Renato Biondo and Professor Francesca Torricelli – categorically stated that Meredith’s DNA was on the blade.

——

The Knife — The knife that does not match the victim’s wounds; the knife that does not match the real murder weapon’s profile on the bloody sheet; the knife which was so sanctimoniously selected to be ‘the knife’ from a drawer full of knifes; the knife that was supposedly transported to and from the crime scene; the knife that was tested for LCN DNA by a laboratory not equipped to do LCN testing; the knife that had numerous recorded notes made by Stefanoni of ‘too low’; the knife which is still hoarding dates/times of testing because the prosecution is still withholding information; the knife for which DNA results cannot be verified by a second test. This form of LCN DNA evidence amounts to, simply, “The defendant is guilty because we say so.”

In addition, how can this knife be the supposed murder weapon wielded by Amanda Knox when there is positively no evidence of her in the victim’s bedroom? Does this mean that Amanda stood in the hallway reaching in to do this ‘slashing’? By her stature, it doesn’t appear that she has long enough arms.
Quentin Zoerhoff said

am February 1 2010 @ 4:49 pm

Harry Rag seems not to have a job but instead posts the same discredited nonsense more or less promiscuously on every site he can find. He is the classic “F” student. He believes what he believes and no amount of real evidence can convince him otherwise. Quoting discredited figures like Nadeau and Micheli at this point in the legal battle is pathetic.

For anyone willing to do some real homework, all of the following is true:

• Amanda’s “confession” was certainly false and coerced.
• The kitchen knife wasn’t the murder weapon.
• The bra clasp is completely worthless as an indicator of guilt.
• The bare footprints were certainly not made in the victim’s blood.
• There was nothing strange about the mixed blood and DNA in the bathroom—it was exactly what you would expect under the circumstances.
• The other Luminol stains are very likely not indicative of blood, and are, in any event, just part of the background noise of the case.
• The theory of a staged break is wild speculation not in any way supported by the facts.
• The prosecution witnesses were uniformly and bizarrely unreliable.
• The idea that there had been a cleanup is not only not supported by evidence, but absurd on the face of it given the circumstances at the cottage.

The conviction has all the hallmarks of a wrongful conviction, including: 1)a false confession, 2) an overzealous (and now disgraced) prosecutor, and 3) a witch hunt atmosphere characterized by character assassination and the acceptance of preposterous conclusions.

Those who say that there is literally no case at all here have it exactly right.
__
maryville said

am February 1 2010 @ 4:50 pm

harry rag posted: Amanda Knox’s DNA was found on: 2. Mixed with Meredith’s blood on the ledge of the basin.
3. Mixed with Meredith’s blood on the bidet.
4. Mixed with Meredith blood on a box of Q Tip cotton swabs.
5. Mixed with Meredith’s blood in the hallway.
6. Mixed with Meredith’s blood on the floor of Filomena’s room, where the break-in was staged

———-

Amanda lived in this flat! Why would one not expect to find her DNA there?
Kim Bailey said

am February 1 2010 @ 4:51 pm

One thing Renee did get right. The true murderers (all 3 of them) have been convicted.
Guest said

am February 1 2010 @ 4:54 pm

Ugh whatever
At this point, whether she’s guilty or innocent doesn’t matter, let those who think she’s innocent do what they want, and those who think she’s guilty do what they want, so long as it doesn’t reflect poorly on schools, cities or politicians.

in other words, let’s keep it clean and classy people
slimjim a crazy said

am February 1 2010 @ 4:58 pm

Emma the ?comedian? said:
If I say all the things that I believe were wrong with the trial, it will release a shit-storm of blogging from the crazy people. I will just say, I have followed the case, and I am convinced, along with many many other people, that Amanda and Raffaele are innocent and the true murderer has been convicted.
*********************

That would have been the funniest line of the night if it did not display such arrogance and ignorance.
Glad you “followed the trial to support that assine snarky grade school quality comment.

19 independent jurists and 8 independent jurors “followed” the evidence a bit more closely than your highness, and *unanimously concluded guilt.

end of story
maryville said

am February 1 2010 @ 5:02 pm

harry rag posted: Amanda Knox’s DNA was found on:

7. On Meredith’s bra according to Raffaele Sollecito’s forensic expert, Professor Vinci and Dr. Stefanoni.

———-

The Bra Clasp – This is the clasp which was collected 47 days late with a two minute staged ‘show and tell’ charade for the camera lens; this clasp was retrieved only after a shoe print attributed to Raffaele (the only evidence against him) was determined to instead be Guede’s; this is the clasp for which DNA results cannot be verified by performing another test; this is the clasp revealing DNA of yet to be identified individuals.

How and why is DNA of these unidentified individuals on this clasp? Are these unidentified individuals involved in the assault/murder? Are the Italian police attempting to identify these individuals in order to bring them to justice?

There is a lack of a specified amount of Raffaele’s DNA found on the clasp. In court it was said to be “abundant” and when questioned further, Dr. Stefanoni quoted a number. But when the defense asked to see the actual paperwork on this quoted amount, none was produced.
Theo Stanopoulos said

am February 1 2010 @ 5:03 pm

Guest said:

”….so long as it doesn’t reflect poorly on schools, cities or politicians.

in other words, let’s keep it clean and classy people”

That sounds like not picking up the stone to examine its underside. ‘Fraid that’s already been done however, and one of the things stuck to the stone was given 16 months.
maryville said

am February 1 2010 @ 5:04 pm

Guest said

am February 1 2010 @ 4:54 pm

Ugh whatever
At this point, whether she’s guilty or innocent doesn’t matter,

————

Why don’t you write Amanda Knox and tell her that you think whether she is guilty or innocent doesn’t matter.
maryville said

am February 1 2010 @ 5:07 pm

harry rag posted: “A woman’s bloody shoeprint, which matched Amanda Knox’s foot size, was found on a pillow under Meredith’s body. The bloody shoeprint was incompatible with Meredith’s shoe size.”
______________

The once ambiguous bloody shoe print on the pillow was shown to have been made by Guede’s outbreak-2 tread pattern shoe when Professor Carlo Torre pointed out that a crease in the pillow had made the shoe print to appear smaller than its actual size.

Also, Amanda did not and does not own shoes with the outbreak-2 tread pattern. Sorry, Harry!
maryville said

am February 1 2010 @ 5:14 pm

harry rag posted:

“Two independent imprint experts categorically excluded the possibility that the bloody footprint on the blue bathmat could belong to Rudy Guede. Lorenzo Rinaldi stated: ““You can see clearly that this bloody footprint on the rug does not belong to Mr. Guede, but you can see that it is compatible with Sollecito.”

The other imprint expert print expert testified that the bloody footprint on the blue bathmat matched the precise characteristics of Sollecito’s foot.”
________

The human eye is all that is needed to see that the bathmat footprint is more likely to be Guede’s instead of Sollecito’s. The bathmat has a bloody blob imprint where the tip of the toe next to the big toe would have hit the mat. This bloody blob extends beyond the big toe–i.e., the person’s toe next to the big toe is longer than the big toe. This fits Guede’s foot and not Sollecito’s foot.

The human eye disproves the prosecution’s ‘expert’ witnesses!
maryville said

am February 1 2010 @ 5:24 pm

The last word:

The coroner testified that one or more assaulters may have been involved in the assault/murder. Strange, he was relieved of his duties shortly there after.

Amanda didn’t ‘know’ details that she wouldn’t have been aware unless she had been there. She learned of these details from flatmates that saw into the room as the victim’s bedroom door was opened. Nothing fishy here at all.

When all has been said, society desires justice based on motive, proof of presence, and eye witnesses. In the absence of these indicators of guilt, it’s incredulous that the Court of Assizes found Amanda and Raffaele guilty. Shame on you Italy!

It’s hard to imagine that people like harry rag rail on and on with lies and ignorance in an attempt to see innocent people confined to prison for long periods of time. If they believe in a higher power, they might want to do a little soul searching.
J.T. Lund said

am February 1 2010 @ 5:28 pm

QUOTE from “Maryville”:

“The Bra Clasp – This is the clasp which was collected 47 days late”

——————————————–

There is no statute of limitations on the submission of evidence for a charge of murder.

That bra clasp could have been submitted 47 YEARS from now.

Further, the clasp was sitting in a SEALED crime scene – it was merely collected on the 2nd evidence sweep of the cottage, 6 weeks after the first sweep.

Who told you that the police only get one sweep of a crime scene?!
Rick Bonin said

am February 1 2010 @ 5:32 pm

Harry Rag is such a slimebad internet troll. Nice job putting him in his place, maryville.

Free Amanda and Rafaelle
Chase Roper said

am February 1 2010 @ 5:45 pm

Ok, I just have one question after reading these extensive comments.

Where can I buy my own Double DNA knife?
Kim Bailey said

am February 1 2010 @ 5:46 pm

Even Knox’s attorneys who sat through 11 months of testimony, talked to Knox for more than a year, reviewed all the evidence – could not say that she was innocent. The lead attorney stated that there was enough doubt. I don’t care about reasonable doubt, there was evidence to indicate that she was involved in this crime, no matter how minute. I am very glad that she did not get away with murder.
Crazies said

am February 1 2010 @ 5:49 pm

So Curt banged Renee in the 80s and apparently did such a fine job that she still does anything for him. How brain washed some of these people are, she calls everyone who has followed the trial and noticed the overwhelming evidence against Amanda as “Crazies.” The only crazy nut is the person holding a comedy fund raiser for a convicted murderer and his dad who abandoned the girl at age two!
John Winters said

am February 1 2010 @ 6:10 pm

Chase Roper says:

”Where can I buy my own Double DNA knife?”

You don’t have to buy one. Just pop round to Amanda’s house and take a knife (any one will do), from the kitchen drawer. Send it to Rome’s criminal forensics laboratory where they will be happy to add some DNA from a person of your choosing.

And when they send it back to you, prepare yourself to find it parcelled in something really witty like a sheet of giftwrap with pictures of Santy Claus on it.
Al-Fakh Yugoudh said

am February 1 2010 @ 6:33 pm

A court of law in a free and democratic sovereign nation has unanimously ruled, after a trial lasting 11 months, that based on the evidence presented in court, Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are guilty of all charges.

A comedy club in a free and democratic sovereign nation has unanimously decided to hold a comedy show in honor of a convicted murderer.

I don’t have a problem with either event.

Viva la democrazia! Viva la liberta`!
Lucinda said

am February 1 2010 @ 6:56 pm

I am very glad to hear there were no jokes about Italy or the trial. I think the people who did the comedy show meant well, but it is unfortunately bad press again for Amanda. I believe she and her boyfriend are innocent, and I don’t understand why people are so convinced of their guilt. There wasn’t much of a case against them.
John Winters said

am February 1 2010 @ 7:27 pm

”A court of law in a free and democratic sovereign nation has unanimously ruled, after a trial lasting 11 months, that based on the evidence presented in court, Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are guilty of all charges.”

Don’t be absurd.
John Winters said

am February 1 2010 @ 7:43 pm

”Further, the clasp was sitting in a SEALED crime scene – it was merely collected on the 2nd evidence sweep of the cottage, 6 weeks after the first sweep.”

Please see video of ”SEALED” crimescene on:

You Tube ”Amanda Knox – 47 days is a long time – The bra clasp discovery”

where the door of the crimescene is wide open during the ‘’sweeping” and the entire crimescene has been extensively altered with clothes and all other items in the room moved around and piled on top of each other etc. as one would expect in a crimescene where all of the potential DNA evidence has been appropriately bagged before these things are moved (in this case 47 days before).

The statute of limitations applies to potential DNA items which have been uninterfered with between the event and their discovery. It does not apply to items which were ”forgotten” for 7 weeks and whose location has changed from their original location at the time of crimescene establishment.
Robin said

am February 1 2010 @ 7:44 pm

Oh I can die happy; there are true-blue well-spoken sensible people talking here. Thank-you Renee,Quentin,Theo,John and Maryville for setting the facts down correctly.

To J.T. Lund and his comment that the bra clasp found after 47 days was in a “sealed” crime scene. Have you seen the police crime scene photos of them finding the bra clasp?(you can still find it somewhere on the web) They very carefully pick the bra clasp up from a pile of rubbish on the floor. That bra clasp had been kicked around and moved along with that pile of debris on the floor. DNA can be picked up from “mingling” with anything. Having mingled with a huge pile of debris the bra clasp DNA was worthless.
Bill said

am February 1 2010 @ 7:48 pm

Look at the photo of Amanda Knox in the article. Who smirks at a murder trial? Must have been funnier than heck. She didn’t laugh when the verdict was read, now did she?
Harry R. Wilkens said

am February 1 2010 @ 8:13 pm

Twittering for Amanda
http://twitter.com/FreeAmandaKnox

http://freeamanda.livejournal.com (with link to our Facebook)
Al-Fakh Yugoudh said

am February 1 2010 @ 8:47 pm

Robin writes: “DNA can be picked up from “mingling” with anything. Having mingled with a huge pile of debris the bra clasp DNA was worthless.”

AND WHERE EXACTLY DID THE BRA CLASP FIND RAFFAELE’S DNA TO “MINGLE WITH AND PICK UP”? DID THE BRA CLASP GO ALL THE WAY TO HIS APARTMENT, “PICK UP” SOME DNA FROM HIM, AND CAME BACK TO THE HOUSE?

YOU DON’T PICK UP “ANY DNA” FROM “MINGLING WITH ANYTHING”. YOU PICK UP DNA IF YOU COME INTO CONTACT WITH IT. AND SINCE THERE WAS NO DNA FROM RAFFAELE IN THAT ROOM, THEN HOW DID THE CLASP PICK IT UP?

DO YOU THINK THAT WE ARE ALL GULLIBLE FOOLS?
Al-Fakh Yugoudh said

am February 1 2010 @ 8:50 pm

John Winters said: “The statute of limitations applies to…..blah, blah..”.

And where did you study the rules on limitations in the Italian law?

Making them up, uh? As usual when you don’t know S**T.
Tony Del Balzo said

am February 1 2010 @ 8:56 pm

Three quick points:
No photos were allowed during the trial. However, they were allowed during breaks. (Except for Knox’s final testimony) So any smiling or grinning was at family members who were only allowed to visit a scant 6 days a month. She spent over 700 days in prison in an HIV infested environment before being convicted.

Second, the failure of a person to demonstrate reactions that meet your expectations is NOT an indication or guilt or even guilt by association.

Third, I love this forum. I can type any hate filed, ignorant flame that I want. I can demonstrate ignorance, bad taste and character assassination I want, unfortunately…
Al-Fakh Yugoudh said

am February 1 2010 @ 8:57 pm

“The Bra Clasp – This is the clasp which was collected 47 days late”

So???

249 prisoners in America have been exonerated from having committed the crime for which they were convicted in the past few years. 17 of them from death row.

The average years these innocent people have already spent in prison is 13 years, before their release. One of the, James Bain, was released last month after 35 years in prison.

This was done thanks to testing on DNA collected YEARS after the crime.

DNA lasts longer than 6 weeks. It doesn’t expire and it doesn’t change over time to assume the characteristics of DNA from other people.
Al-Fakh Yugoudh said

am February 1 2010 @ 9:01 pm

In an attempt to justify the presence of Meredith’s DNA in one of his kitchen knives (the murder weapon), Raffaele writes to his father from prison that it happened one day when Meredith was at his apartment and he was preparing dinner for her, when accidentally he pricked her with that knife.

It turned out that Meredith never had dinner at his apartment and had never gone to his apartment for any reason. She hardly knew him.

Why would you come up with a story like that if you weren’t trying to cover up your guilt?

I bet it must be hard to hide the truth that you’re a crazy murderer from your father.
Tony Del Balzo said

am February 1 2010 @ 9:02 pm

Believe her or not, Amanda Knox is still a frightened, somewhat naive young lady who choose to stay in Italy to comfort Meredith’s father and stayed in Perugia to help the police rather than seek shelter with relatives in Germany.

Let’s flood her cell with Valentines on February 14 (after Saint Valentine whose feast is on February 14. He was imprisoned and buried at the Via Flaminia north of Rome on February 14.) Please mail by February 1 and packages will NOT be allowed into the prison.

Amanda Knox
c/o Casa Circondariale
Strada Pievaiola
06100 Capanne (PG)
Italy

Bless you!
John Winters said

am February 1 2010 @ 9:26 pm

”19 independent jurists and 8 independent jurors “followed” the evidence a bit more closely than your highness…..”

When they weren’t falling asleep….
John Winters said

am February 1 2010 @ 9:38 pm

Al-Fak myselfoneofthesedays:

”AND SINCE THERE WAS NO DNA FROM RAFFAELE IN THAT ROOM, THEN HOW DID THE CLASP PICK IT UP?”

Raffaele tried to force Kercher’s room’s door so his DNA was on the door handle used by CSI’s to get into it. That’s just one place his DNA might have been IN HIS GIRLFRIENDS HOUSE!!

”And where did you study the rules on limitations in the Italian law?
Making them up, uh? As usual when you don’t know S**T.”

And you don’t know me so how do you know what I’ve studied and haven’t studied.

Oh and by the way, I do know Scot. He’s the one who beams people up only judging by the fact that I am still here with you, the particle exchanger must be misfunctioning.
Just me said

am February 1 2010 @ 9:47 pm

I take it that Renee Perrault spent many days attending the court in Perugia and listened to all the evidence????
Just me said

am February 1 2010 @ 9:53 pm

Of course Renee Perrault didn’t notice that a naturalised Italian from the Ivory Coast and a rich Italian were also convicted of the crime.
Al-Fakh Yugoudh said

am February 1 2010 @ 10:12 pm

“Raffaele tried to force Kercher’s room’s door so his DNA was on the door handle used by CSI’s to get into it.”

Oh yeah! What a coincidence!

It’s interesting that whenever the DNA of Amanda and Raffaele is mixed with the victim’s blood or on the victim’s clasp, it got there accidentally.

If the blood in the bathroom was the result of Rudy washing his bloody hands, how come they didn’t find his DNA mixed with that blood, but instead they found Amanda’s DNA mixed with it? Isn’t strange?

Rudy also supposedly broke into the house through that bedroom window, searched the bedroom for valuables (which he didn’t see even though it was on top of the furniture), and yet they found no DNA or fingerprints from him. The only DNA they found in that bedroom was Amanda and it was mixed with the victim’s blood.

Coincidence once again. She lived there after all (although that wasn’t her bedroom).

Somehow whenever Raffaele’s or Amanda’s DNA seems to incriminate them, it’s because of a coincidence or contamination.

You think that we are all a bunch of idiots that you can fool anyway you like, don’t you?

Obviously the judges there weren’t fooled by your nonsense, were they? But you can still hope in the appeal judges of course. Maybe the next judges will be a bunch of gullible fools who’ll believe your BS.
Just me said

am February 1 2010 @ 10:27 pm

Tony Del Balzo said

am February 1 2010 @ 9:02 pm

Believe her or not, Amanda Knox is still a frightened, somewhat naive young lady who choose to stay in Italy to comfort Meredith’s father and stayed in Perugia to help the police rather than seek shelter with relatives in Germany…

Of course! That explains why none of the Knox/Mellas’s have ever spoken to the Kerchers to offer their condolences.

It explains why Amanda went out for a meal with Raffaele at the same time as Meredith’s fellow students held a candle light vigil in her memory.
Tony said

am February 1 2010 @ 10:29 pm

Of course Amandais innocent her family have paid good money to a PR firm to make sure the accepted evidence is discredited in the US media. Luckily the trial was in an Italian court and not the Seattle PI. Three defense teams lost to the same evidence, if this murder had happned here you would be sayng that 26 years is not enough. Get over yourselves she did it and has to pay the price.
Mary H. said

am February 1 2010 @ 10:39 pm

Harry Rag wrote: “Legal expert Stefano Maffei stated the following:”

“There were 19 judges who looked at the evidence over the course of two years, faced with decisions on pre-trial detention, review of such detention, committal to trial, judgment on criminal responsibility. They all agreed, at all times, that the evidence was overwhelming.”

Kim Bailey wrote: “Even Knox’s attorneys who sat through 11 months of testimony, talked to Knox for more than a year, reviewed all the evidence – could not say that she was innocent.”

It’s hard to get nineteen blithering-idiot judges and a couple of defense lawyers to agree on anything, but if it’s going to happen anywhere, it’s going to happen in Perugia.

They all must have decided they’d like to prolong their lives for awhile.
pat az said

am February 1 2010 @ 10:55 pm

Perrault displays a sad arrogance – claiming a superiority of knowledge and intelligence over any who have doubts as to Knox’s innocence. In her case, any who doubt are “crazy bloggers” pushing “wrong facts”. Never mind that some of those “crazy bloggers” may have spent hundreds of hours translating material from italian, material including daily news articles of the testimony during the trial and the 100+page judges report from Guede’s trial.

At this time there is a pervasive cognitive dissonance expressed in defending Knox; we exist in a state where there simultaneously “no evidence” against knox while at the same time hearing countless arguments against the evidence presented at the trials. One previous commenter above posted at least 9 points in his “discredited evidence” comment. Knox supporters would do better with their case if they instead approached it from the angle of “all of the evidence is flawed”; but of course this isn’t as nice a sound bite (or worthy of a case) as stating “there is no evidence”.

Some of those “crazy bloggers” also point out the cognitive dissonance expressed when negating the reliability of the DNA evidence against knox while simultaneously propping up the DNA evidence against Guede. We are to believe that the lab is apparently a bunch of back-woods incompetents in any of the evidence that points to Knox; while at the same time utterly reliable in any evidence that points away from Knox.

From what I’ve read the defence tried to discredit the evidence during the trial and failed. Thus at this point in time it is only in the american media that any of the evidence could be said to be “discredited”.

For a full explanation of why the italian jury came to the conclusion they did, we’ll have to await the report coming out in the next few weeks.
CHAR said

am February 1 2010 @ 11:18 pm

Why don’t Amanda and Rafaelle’s final alibis match?

In the final version of her alibi, Amanda claims she was at Rafaelle’s house. In HIS final version, he says he was alone from 9pm-1am while she went out somewhere.

If they are innocent, why don’t their alibis match?
michael j butler said

am February 1 2010 @ 11:20 pm

Well done on the fundraiser Renee, keep up the good work, and lets get Amanda home to her family, where she belongs, God Bless you and your endeavors.
msanc said

am February 1 2010 @ 11:25 pm

Al_Fakh-yougud said: ” …This was done thanks to testing on DNA collected YEARS after the crime… ”

You may wanna rethink that. The DNA was collected at the times of the crimes, DNA testing was generally unavailable at the times of the crimes. You should practice greater precision in your writing.
msanc said

am February 1 2010 @ 11:29 pm

Harry Rag (The Machine) said: “Amanda Knox’s footprints were found set in Meredith’s blood in two places in the hallway of the new wing of the cottage.”

This is a blatant misrepresentation of the facts. There were no tests for blood on any footprints in the hallway. You post your lies everywhere to the extent that you begin to believe them.
CHAR said

am February 1 2010 @ 11:37 pm

Oh and Renee, did you hold a fundraiser for Amanda when Curt repeatedly blew off his child support payments when she was growing up?

Better start working on a lot of material, because the Knox/Mellas clan is going to need $$$ for trips to Italy for the next 26 years to visit their very guilty daughter. The only way she’ll get home sooner is to show remorse for what she did, and thus receive time off her sentence.

Maybe if her family and friends weren’t trying to make her into some kind of victim, she’d have the courage to admit the truth about her part in the murder.
maryville said

am February 2 2010 @ 12:01 am

Crazies said:

“So Curt banged Renee in the 80s and apparently did such a fine job that she still does anything for him.”

————-

This post warrants a slander charge!
sadjoe said

am February 2 2010 @ 12:03 am

The one FACT that we KNOW is true is that Amanda Knox did NOT receive a fair trail with impartial jurors where she was presumed innocent until proven guilty.
Until she can get a FAIR trail with an impartial jurors any discussions of the other facts of this case are superfluous.
CHAR said

am February 2 2010 @ 12:51 am

The one FACT we know is that sadjoe (above) knows NOTHING about how the trial was conducted.

Seriously, sadjoe, I think even your fellow FOAKers will agree that idiotic and ignorant statements like yours above do not help Amanda in any way.

She was presumed innocent and was found guilty by a panel of impartial jurors. The very humane and defendent-friendly Italian justice system guarantees her an appeal (that the US system would NOT) and the overwhelming amount of evidence against her– especially her & Rafaelle’s many, many lies and changing/unmatching alibis– will undoubtedly confirm her guilt.

In the meantime, you should take a little time to read up on the actual facts of the case so that you don’t make a further fool of yourself posting by nonsense.
Shilo said

am February 2 2010 @ 12:56 am

maryville said
am February 2 2010 @ 12:01 am
Crazies said:

“So Curt banged Renee in the 80s and apparently did such a fine job that she still does anything for him.”

————-

This post warrants a slander charge!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

you mean “libel”, Maryville

and Curt/Renee would need to show damages/ economic harm

and that the anonymous poster was the “proximate cause” of that harm

and Curt/Renee would need to hope that it couldn’t be proven to be true on a balance of probabilities

and where are they going to find the money to retain defamation lawyers?! (they have already turned to charity to pay for criminal lawyers)

I’ve noticed you like to threaten people with “slander charges” in other comment sections, yet you appear to know as little about the law in this regard as you do about the evidence inculpating Amanda & her boyfriend
Mary H. said

am February 2 2010 @ 12:56 am

pat az, there is little advantage to being able to translate the documentation; it all ends up in English eventually. I have conversed on blogs with a couple of people who claim superiority on account of their skill in Italian while they simultaneously demonstrate their inability to use reason and logic to analyze the available information. What good is that?

It also doesn’t help to know Italian if you are guided by hatred for the suspects or by blind patriotism, as many are.

There is no dissonance between saying there is no evidence and discrediting what it being claimed as evidence. It’s just a matter of semantics. Amanda’s supporters try to explain and illustrate how the claimed pieces of evidence are not actually evidence in case anyone wants to further their understanding of the problems.

There is also no dissonance between calling the DNA evidence for Guede reliable and the DNA evidence for Amanda unreliable. Guede left copious evidence at the crime scene, which was collected as a matter of course in the investigation and routinely tested. His arrest followed.

What is being claimed as evidence against Amanda was selectively searched for after she was arrested, not before, and was collected under such suspicious conditions that it would not be admissible in most modern courts. Many professional scientists have evaluated the test results and called them invalid.

You wrote: “From what I’ve read the defence tried to discredit the evidence during the trial and failed.”

It’s not that they failed to discredit the evidence, it’s that the jury failed to pay attention and/or to defy the prosecutors and the judges. The “evidence” is discredited, with or without the approval of the court.
CHAR said

am February 2 2010 @ 1:01 am

Mary H, please explain why Amanda and Rafaelle’s alibis don’t match.
jim said

am February 2 2010 @ 1:04 am

miss renee u are crazy , not the bloggers for hosting this event for a convucted felon, an evil beast. who came to ur event either racist rednecks who believe in white supermacy still, thats why u and rest of the folks who came in ur comedy show are supporting this beast amanda. had she been dark u and rest of ur gang will be the first to indict her on the basis of circumstantial evidences. even u are saying that her guilt is proven on the basis of circumstantial evidence. donnt u think u sound crazy saying this? aren”t murder cases proven on circumstantial evidences? like oj simpson and scott peterson?criminals like this evil amanda erase the evidence with bleach.why wuld she buy bleach 6:45 in the morning?why wuld she be standing with her sick boyfriend in front of the house with mop and a bucket?why wuld she change her story and then blame it on a black man?if u are innocent u atleast will not blame it on someone else? isnt all this enough to say that she is a decietful and compulsive liar? how come all other roomates alibis when they were questioned by police went through except her and her boyfriend? not only that even her boyfriend told cops that she had told him loads of bullshit and that she made him lie!how come these evidences dont convince people like u. i know why these evidnces dont convice people like u. becuz u and whoever came to this comedy show are believers of whiter supermacy and will do anything to support evil racist murderers like amanda knox. by the way amnda is also a racist as well, becuz she once told a jew in seattle in a cafe she used to work saying and laughing my people killed ur people. hope this murder charming psycopath rot in jail for 26 yrs and u and amanda’s family are ot brave, but shameful white supermacist
jim said

am February 2 2010 @ 1:29 am

maryville, knowing the villes in this country u must be some redneck white supermacist from some small town racist ville , ignorant as usual and thererfore ignoring the facts about this case and hence supprting this evil, beast and charming psycopath. dont be too excited this beast will rot in that hole in itlay for 26 yrs.just answer one thing, why did she blame it on someone else if she is innocent?
Amber Preston said

am February 2 2010 @ 1:32 am

Why can’t the Mellases and Knoxes at least exhibit some dignity in public. They could have learned a thing or two about it from the family of the real victim.

This article has such a defensive tone to it that I can’t help but think that the fundraiser was a disaster from a PR standpoint.

Rest in Peace, Meredith Kercher.
@ Mary H said

am February 2 2010 @ 1:54 am

Careful, now. Your nose is going to start growing again.
Enzo Zoff said

am February 2 2010 @ 2:17 am

@John Winters and Mary H, [who is really Candence the Cook, apparently]:

here’s Jooohhhnnnyyyyyy ….

Missed you bud, where have you been.

It’s always a pleasure to read your comments; you’re so right of course, as is Mary H.

Keep up the good work — and don’t forget Valentine’s Day — flowers for Amanda, ok ?

dixi
Enzo Zoff said

am February 2 2010 @ 2:33 am

@CHAR:

You’ve got it all wrong, Char!

They do match … it’s just that Amanda can’t remember how they match [yet] and Raffaele was doped out to even remember if he porked her!

I know from first hand experience how easy it is to forget a really good bang the night before; it happens to the best of us.

There is NO proof, and no-one has offered any, that Amanda was even in Perugia that night!

So how could she be guilty ?
Kim Bailey said

am February 2 2010 @ 2:48 am

Tony Del Balzo said “So any smiling or grinning was at family members” nonsense. Knox was hugging and kissing her attorneys and anyone else she could get her hands on. Her testimony is online, as well as others. Oh yeah the cameras were there the entire time. “naive young lady who choose to stay in Italy to comfort Meredith’s father and stayed in Perugia to help the police.” MORE NONSENSE, Knox was caught at the door by the police MOP-IN-HAND. She could not run so instead she blamed the black bartender.

Renee said; “the evidence presented at the trial was circumstantial.” You are admitting that there was evidence against Knox and don’t even realize it. Who is the crazy?
NOSEE'EM's said

am February 2 2010 @ 3:03 am

Ride high on your “denial waves”…. those that choose to look the other way and proclaim amanda knox’s “innocence.”
Just make sure that you take her back to the U.S.A.
if she gets out on appeal– nobody else in the world wants her.
Shane said

am February 2 2010 @ 3:30 am

“Some of those “crazy bloggers” also point out the cognitive dissonance expressed when negating the reliability of the DNA evidence against knox while simultaneously propping up the DNA evidence against Guede.”

Not even Guede’s own defense team disputed the forensic evidence against him. It’s possible for an innocent person’s DNA to end up on a bra clasp that kicked around the crime scene for a month and a half, even if that person never touched it. Inside the victim’s vagina? Not so much.
Shane said

am February 2 2010 @ 3:32 am

“MORE NONSENSE, Knox was caught at the door by the police MOP-IN-HAND. She could not run so instead she blamed the black bartender.”

I’m sorry, but what you’ve posted is nonsense. Knox and Sollecito were waiting in the garden when the police arrived, not standing at the door with a mop. Don’t bother checking the facts, though.
Mary H. said

am February 2 2010 @ 3:40 am

Char ~ Amanda and Raffaele spent the night together at his apartment. That is the truth, that is what they told the police and that was what was accepted for four days after the murder, until Mignini got a bee in his bonnet and hauled them off to jail for reasons unknown.

Amanda changed her story under duress during the interrogation; she has explained why several times. In addition to telling her she would go to prison for thirty years and never see her family during that time, the police lied to her about there being evidence of her at the crime scene and said that Raffaele was no longer providing her with an alibi.

Similarly, the police put Raffaele in isolation, interrogated him in spite of his protests, and lied to him about what Amanda had been saying.

Both of these young people trusted and believed the police and eventually conformed their mental images to the images the police described. It is a phenomenon that does occur, as those who are knowledgeable in legal, forensic and psychological matters will confirm.

Amanda reverted to her original alibi the day after the interrogation; Raffaele, as a native Italian, was more vulnerable to the authority of the police, so continued for awhile to believe that Amanda had been at the crime scene; recently he publicly conceded that was impossible.

Contrary to popular belief, neither suspect offered multiple or often-changing alibis. Amanda offered two — one before the interrogation, and one during the interrogation; after the interrogation she went back to the first one. The same with Raffaele, except that he, more often than Amanda, tried to “fill in the blanks” in an attempt to make sense of what the cops told him.

The main problem with focusing on the inconsistent alibis is that people forget that Amanda and Raffaele became suspects for no reason before they provided the false explanations under duress. In other words, if they had never been taken in for interrogations, the false explanations would never have been made.

It isn’t fair to hold that testimony against them if they were there under false pretenses. The fact is, the police could have brought any young person into an interrogation and persuaded them they were at the scene of the crime, if that’s what they wanted them to admit. The police were not taking no for an answer.

The focus should be on whether there was any evidence against Amanda and Raffaele before they went unaccompanied into the interrogations. People call them liars because they became confused, but it was the police who were doing all the lying.
Mary H. said

am February 2 2010 @ 3:48 am

Kim wrote: “MORE NONSENSE, Knox was caught at the door by the police MOP-IN-HAND.”

Kim, when the two police officers gave their depositions, they did not say they caught Amanda at the door with a mop in her hand. They said Amanda and Raffaele were sitting in the yard (or the garden) waiting. If you like to look at it for yourself, you can find it here:

http://unionesarda.ilsole24ore.com/Articoli/Articolo/105013

I could be wrong, but I believe there is also no mention of a mop or bucket in Judge Micheli’s sentencing report.

If you are getting your information about the case from the truejustice website, I suggest you broaden your horizons by looking at original sources. truejustice withholds a great deal of information from its readers.
privatedoberman said

am February 2 2010 @ 3:49 am

Wow! Lots of posters turning up for this one. It sure as heck gets confusing. Who to believe? Maybe we should go back to that long post by Harry Rag. You know the one. Right near the beginning.

He outlines a whole heap of evidence against Miss Amanda. Looks pretty convincing to me. However then Ol’ Miss Maryville says “Harry Rag: Quit spewing your filthy hate.” Hmmmm let’s chew this one over.

Any evidence presented in court and accepted by the jury is “filthy hate” Any statement by people over in good ol’ Seattle that they just pluck out of the air is the truth.

About sums it up for me.
See the UK Documentary said

am February 2 2010 @ 4:28 am

Watch the documentary that the last fund raiser paid for.

You’ll see the lisping “Mary H” – just look for the old chick sporting the Nixon nose & jowls over a massive wattle.

(Looks as though lying affects your neck line as much as it does your nose!)
privatedoberman said

am February 2 2010 @ 4:31 am

Perhaps Mary H has a point when she says

“It’s hard to get nineteen blithering-idiot judges and a couple of defense lawyers to agree on anything, but if it’s going to happen anywhere, it’s going to happen in Perugia.”

Hard to go against anything as conclusive as this. Let’s see…. Miss Amanda is in stir because all nineteen judges are mad. Good argument? Do we have any psychiatrist reports to back it up?

I’m beginning to think that Harry Rag is looking much more convincing now.
Jiminy said

am February 2 2010 @ 4:42 am

The Adventures of Pinocchio didn’t tell us the whole story, but the UK documentary on Amanda does.

One look at the food blogger and you will realize that, in addition to abnormal nose length, lying can also cause the following to develop:

Nixon-like jowls;
Massive neck whattle;
Lisping; &
Inability to Reason.
Jim E. Nee said

am February 2 2010 @ 4:51 am

The Adventures of Pinocchio didn’t tell us the whole story, but the UK documentary on Amanda does.

One look at the food blogger and you will realize that, in addition to abnormal nose length, lying can also cause the following to develop:

Nixon-like jowls;
Massive neck whattle;
Lisping; &
Inability to Reason.
johnny law said

am February 2 2010 @ 5:15 am

Dear Renee:

Here’s a quote from my Harvard-educated evidence law prof that will help you out:

“Circumstantial evidence is just that: E V I D E N C E.”
Fielding Zimmerman said

am February 2 2010 @ 5:31 am

Gee Doberman, and I always had you down for a fool! Seems that you have got this case weighed up real good.

However, have you forgotten Miss Amanda’s written statement, which concludes:

“Everything I have said in regards to my involvement in Meredith’s death, even though it is contrasting, are the best truth that I have been able to think.”

This girl has certainly tried real hard to think some truths. You’ve got to give her that!
John Winters said

am February 2 2010 @ 5:35 am

Pat Az sounds like a person who has not been educated.
privatedoberman said

am February 2 2010 @ 5:35 am

Hi Fielding.
You know what? Perhaps I’m not so bright after all, but my posts seem to have gone missing. What was it I said?
John Winters said

am February 2 2010 @ 5:50 am

Oh yeah, and for anyone who wants to know why Amanda’s DNA was found in Romanelli’s room, it is not surprising if Amanda explored that room. She could not get to her own and Kercher’s rooms without going past Romanelli’s room, the door of which was open with broken glass on the floor, visible from the lounge. Amanda might easily have ventured in out of curiosity having seen the glass. This is not a mansion. It is a small living space Amanda shared with 3 adult females.
Stash Kadowski said

am February 2 2010 @ 5:56 am

What I don’t get is why Amanda said that she saw blood on Raphael’s hands. I know that she presumed it was from the fish that they ate, after the shower that they took. It seems like a very small detail for one who says that she could remember very little on account of all the hash they smoked. But the again:

“Everything Ii have said in regards to my involvement in Meredith’s death, even though it is contrasting, are the best truths I have been able to think”

So that explains it.
John Winters said

am February 2 2010 @ 6:28 am

zzzzzzzzzzzzz
jiminy said

am February 2 2010 @ 6:28 am

QUOTE:

“Amanda might easily have ventured in out of curiosity having seen the glass.”
————————————

in bare feet?

there was broken glass all over the place
jiminy said

am February 2 2010 @ 6:32 am

I just read an interesting assertion.

It’s claimed that the 46 day delay on the collection of the bra clasp was due to the DEFENSE.

Apparently, they were dragging their feet (deliberately) when it came to setting a date to witness the police collection of the clasp.
Stash Kadowski said

am February 2 2010 @ 6:41 am

It seems that Miss Amanda and Young Rafe were under suspicion from the start. Usually we commend the police when they go by their hunches, but suspicious behavior doesn’t count for some. It wasn’t only the police who were suspicious. The other flat mates were also uncomfortable about these two.

Miss Amanda wasn’t hauled in by the police. She went to accompany young Rafe. While she was relaxing, doing her yoga and a bit of gym work, he was in with the police blowing her alibi by saying that she was out from 9.00 to 1.00. Worth investigating, I would think.

With her alibi blow, Miss Amanda came up with one of her other truths. But you’ve got to hand it to her. They were the best truths she was able to think.
Dilemma said

am February 2 2010 @ 7:05 am

What I want to know is why was she lingerie shopping in a kinky shop the day after she found her housemate murdered?She was seen on CCTV with the boyfriend present.
Dilemma said

am February 2 2010 @ 7:20 am

Also do people not realise the delicacy of this situation?A girl was murdered and another sent to prison for an excess of 25 years.Two lives lost effectively and they are having a comedy night!!!??Stupid woman just wants publicity!

I am not an american,italian or british person and I think that is sick!Fundraising night for a convicted murderer?That’s shocking.
Mary H. said

am February 2 2010 @ 7:43 am

Were all these last several posts written by the same person? They certainly sound like it. Lot of variety in the names, not a lot of variety in the mantras.

dobermna, you don’t have to be mad to be a blithering idiot; it also counts if you’re just cowed by Mignini, like everyone involved with the trial was. Wanting to avoid those broken kneecaps and all, you know.

Stash Kadowski has got to be another pseudonym for Harry Rag a/k/a “La Machine,” etc., etc., etc. He’s always very big on the phrase “it seems.” He writes whole pages full of “it seems” on truejustice and the little lambs just follow right along. Who needs facts when “it seems” that lies are true?

Let Candace Dempsey write her non-fiction book — the boys at truejustice are producing some gripping novels.

Fielding, better watch yourself, you’re giving aid to the enemy — Amanda’s lapse in grammar is evidence in itself that she was under stress. She went to a Jesuit high school and had to be in the top 15% of high school students to get into UW.

jiminy wrote: “I just read an interesting assertion. It’s claimed that the 46 day delay on the collection of the bra clasp was due to the DEFENSE.”

Guess what, jiminy. I just read an interesting assertion, too. It’s claimed you are and your buddies are all morons. No documentation necessary.

Hopefully, I’ll catch some of the truejustice crowd on here and they’ll believe me. After all, they’ll believe anything.
Mary H. said

am February 2 2010 @ 7:49 am

Dilemma wrote: “What I want to know is why was she lingerie shopping in a kinky shop the day after she found her housemate murdered?She was seen on CCTV with the boyfriend present.”

I’m not sure the shop owner thinks of his or her store as “kinky.” Amanda’s cottage was a crime scene; she was locked out. She needed underwear.

Too bad Mignini didn’t expend as much energy surveilling the interrogations as he spent stalking the apple of his eye and her boyfriend.
Mary H. said

am February 2 2010 @ 8:03 am

From John Winters:

Chase Roper says:

”Where can I buy my own Double DNA knife?”

“You don’t have to buy one. Just pop round to Amanda’s house and take a knife (any one will do), from the kitchen drawer. Send it to Rome’s criminal forensics laboratory where they will be happy to add some DNA from a person of your choosing.

And when they send it back to you, prepare yourself to find it parcelled in something really witty like a sheet of giftwrap with pictures of Santy Claus on it.”

——————-

Sorry, I missed that one before, John. Very funny and very true. LOL!
slimJim said

am February 2 2010 @ 8:04 am

But you omit the rest of the story (ever so convenient for your ilk).

While buying the non granny panty type underwear, the shop owner *testified* that they were giggling about what hot sex they were going to go home and have have with the new purchase.

Does not a murder make, but hardly the type of behavior one would expect from an innocent Jesuit educated young woman who has just had her “close friend” brutally stabbed to death and raped…by someone else of course.
Dilemma said

am February 2 2010 @ 8:09 am

Yes the shop owner may not have called his shop ‘kinky’ but he overheard the ‘wild sex’ comments Knox was spewing to her boyfriend while discussing which sexy thong to purchase.Then again she may have been to high on drugs to know what she was doing.Maybe the photos taken of her in the shop sucking the boyfriends face were just some kind of comfort to her in light of the situation.
slimJim said

am February 2 2010 @ 8:14 am

Samanda’s grammar:

Sorry, I do not believe her lack of writing skills was due to “stress” or in any conceivable stupid stretch proves improper police action.

I suggest you read any of her many readily available written discourses from pre-Perugia.

They all are rife with the type of infantile errors common to elementary school compositions.

“Honors student” is more of a misnomer that is to be expected from the product of a pseudo Catholic School that expends resources pleading causes of convicted killers and encouraging more student self expression than simple literary skills.
slimJim said

am February 2 2010 @ 8:21 am

Dumbest Defense of the day:

Winters whose impartiality is without bounds asserts that Amanda’s DNA was in the other room because she naturally walked in there out of normal curiousity.

UH_HUH…

PS: the floor was covered in glass from the break in they were convicted of staging, and…she was in her bare feet….remember

OOOOPS.
Mary H. said

am February 2 2010 @ 8:25 am

“Does not a murder make…”

You got that right.
Dilemma said

am February 2 2010 @ 8:29 am

You cannot justify her actions in that store!

Guess she thought she was really gonna get away with her ‘blame the black guy’ story.
Shane said

am February 2 2010 @ 9:03 am

I am SO gonna be lurking on the True Justice sites when Knox and Sollecito are acquitted. The howls of outrage are going to be immense! It’ll be even better than Mignini’s guilty verdict.
Shane said

am February 2 2010 @ 9:05 am

“You cannot justify her actions in that store!”

Who cares? It’s entirely irrelevant to the case. Although if you feel it to be relevant, I completely understand why you think they’re guilty…
privatedoberman said

am February 2 2010 @ 9:44 am

Gee lady, can’t you stick to the facts of the case. People come here and point out some very obvious problems with the defence and then they get insulted. The nerve of it!

So let’s get it straight, what you are saying is not that the jury and the judges involved were “blithering idiots” but that they were forced to support the prosecution on fear of getting their knee caps busted?

O.K. an interesting theory, now where is your proof?
privatedoberman said

am February 2 2010 @ 9:53 am

Hi Stash!

I read your quote from Miss Amanda:

“Everything I have said in regards to my involvement in Meredith’s death, even though it is contrasting, are the best truths I have been able to think”

Funnily enough, I didn’t spot the bad grammar, but then again I was none too good at English. So what do you think about Mary’s theory that the bad grammar is proof that she was innocent?

Mary didn’t mention the blood. So much blood in this case? How about that nasty prick that poor old Ralph got when he cooked the girls dinner? Must have been nasty! By the way, did anyone confirm his story? Did he give dates? He only knew them for six days, so it could not have been hard.

In any case, why did he have to mention pricking his finger at all? All very confusing.
grim said

am February 2 2010 @ 10:05 am

I predict a vast silence when the Knox appeal fails. All you so called self serving hysterical supporters will say
“Oh Well! I guess they were both guilty after all.” Then you can forget all about them both and go on to your next pathetic crusade. Never mind there’s always the Drew Peterson trial you can vent your anger on.
peg said

am February 2 2010 @ 10:51 am

She is guilty. Great post by Harry Rag….and the others who know she is guilty and are a great deal more informed than her supporters!

She was drinking and drugging….that changes people and their character. Amanda is not the innocent sweet girl that her parents believe her to be.

The jurors of Perugia did their job correctly! Let’s keep her there.
Al-Fakh Yugoudh said

am February 2 2010 @ 11:46 am

msanc said
am February 1 2010 @ 11:25 pm

” …This was done thanks to testing on DNA collected YEARS after the crime… ”
The DNA was collected at the times of the crimes, DNA testing was generally unavailable at the times of the crimes.”

DNA IS COLLECTED AND USED AFTER MANY YEARS FOR MANY SCIENTIFIC REASONS, NOT JUST FOR FORENSIC. JUST DO SOME RESEARCH ON GOOGLE.

ARE YOU TRYING TO TELL ME THAT AFTER A LONG TIME YOU CAN HAVE INSTANCES OF DNA APPEARING IN PLACES WHERE THE DNA’S OWNER IS NEVER BEEN BEFORE?

I’VE NEVER BEEN TO ANTARTICA. DO YOU THINK THAT IF WE WAIT LONG ENOUGH MY DNA MIGHT SHOW UP THERE ONE DAY?
Al-Fakh Yugoudh said

am February 2 2010 @ 12:04 pm

privatedoberman said
am February 2 2010 @ 9:53 am

“Mary didn’t mention the blood. So much blood in this case? How about that nasty prick that poor old Ralph got when he cooked the girls dinner? Must have been nasty! By the way, did anyone confirm his story? Did he give dates? He only knew them for six days, so it could not have been hard.”

IT WAS CONFIRMED BY THE POLICE THAT MEREDITH’S DINNER AT HIS APARTMENT NEVER HAPPENED. MEREDITH HAD NEVER BEEN TO HIS APARTMENT FOR ANY REASON, EVER, THEREFORE THAT PRICKING INCIDENT COULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED. IT WAS JUST AN ATTEMPT RAFFAELE MADE TO JUSTIFY THE PRESENCE OF THE VICTIM’S DNA IN THAT KNIFE TO HIS FATHER.

UNFORTUNATELY THIS OBVIOUS LIE BY RAFFAELE SOLLECITO WAS NOT ADMITTED AS EVIDENCE IN COURT AGAINST HIM. IT DIDN’T QUALIFY AS “SPONTANEOUS DECLARATION” BY A SUSPECT. IT WAS IN FACT A LETTER TO HIS FATHER, NOT TO THE POLICE.
Robin said

am February 2 2010 @ 12:25 pm

to Dilemma-

The “kinky’ lingerie shop was, and is, a general store. She had no clothes-(they were in that sealed crime scene) and needed underware.

At that time she spoke almost no Italian- she had only just gotten there remember. They were talking quietly. If you have ever been to that store it is extremely loud with lots of outdoor noise, too, and you would have to shout to be overheard. They couldn’t have been overheard-no matter what the witness said-not unless he was standing right next to them which he wasn’t.

Witnesses are notoriously wrong and see and hear things that never happened-or see them wrong.And don’t forget it was that witnesses 15 minutes of fame-he wouldn’t be human-and Italian-and let that opportunity pass without alittle pizzazz to be remembered by. It’s a story he can tell for the rest of his life-to a very willing audience-and I mean audience because it was nothing more than a performance-just like this is nothing more than a play to alot of people with the “trial” just being another act.He had a bit part but to him-and alot of the supposed witnesses-it’s probably the only real part they will ever have on the world stage.

And by the way this “witness” shopowner doesn’t speak English which is what they had to be speaking in for the most part because Amanda didn’t speak Italian-she was just learning it.

All of these facts are still able to be found for anyone with the desire to look. I think, though, that alot of you aren’t the ones to look very hard for the real facts and have no doubt read the English and Italian tabloids for your edification.You will not get anything correct from those sources-just alot of puff and nonsense leaked from the man-who-can’t be-named-or he-might-sue-us.
grim said

am February 2 2010 @ 12:27 pm

With any luck at all because of the slander charges she will get an additional four years.

Twist in the wind you narcissistic moronic Knox supporters.

After all she’s just a poor little misunderstood girl who killed her room mate. Oh the tragedy, Oh the pathos. Hope she rots when she’s sent to a really rough jail.

I pray to God she gets very very old in jail.
Robin said

am February 2 2010 @ 12:30 pm

Simmer down Al-Fakh you are screaming louder and louder but it’s all hot air signifying nothing-put it into a tuba and it will get you farther.
grim said

am February 2 2010 @ 12:33 pm

And by the way robin. you don’t need to know another language in order to exchange money to buy bleach. Obviously you are some kind of retarded self serving idiot. Comments such as yours are laughable. why not audition for the comedy show the (in Denial) parents put on. sicko……………………..
Robin said

am February 2 2010 @ 12:40 pm

DNA evidence that is used years after a crime is DNA evidence that was sealed right away and has remained untampered-with ,sealed, for years-not intermingled in piles of dity clothes on the floor.

This bra clasp was not sealed until 47 days after the fact-and it it was thus ruined as DNA evidence.It had not only Raffaele’s DNA on it but bits of many other people’s DNA on it too which were unable to be matched to anyone in particular.
IVSTITIA said

am February 2 2010 @ 12:41 pm

Mary H. and John Winters.

All I have to do is google Amanda Knox news and I find you there.

If you write from Seattle you need to sleep a little. You were up all night to write your nonsense that only the two of you and a handful of others are still believing.

I don’t think your PR campaign effort is working too well. It’s still the same five or six people who agree with your theories. Everybody else either doesn’t believe you or doesn’t care.

I also checked the Italian blogs and newspapers this morning. Couldn’t find any Amanda news anymore. Not a word. Not even in all the Perugia or Umbria newspapers. I guess they moved on to the hot news of the day (the ubiquitous Berlusconi and his legal troubles).

And you know, John and Mary, it’s the Italians who should be the target of your campaign, not the people from Seattle. Ultimately it will be the residents of the Province of Perugia who’ll be called to serve as juror in court. It won’t be anybody from King County, Washington.
Robin said

am February 2 2010 @ 12:44 pm

Oh Grim go chase your tail.
IVSTITIA said

am February 2 2010 @ 12:48 pm

Robin: “This bra clasp was not sealed until 47 days after the fact-and it it was thus ruined as DNA evidence.It had not only Raffaele’s DNA on it but bits of many other people’s DNA on it too which were unable to be matched to anyone in particular.”

Could you provide the sources of what you’re saying? (not bloggers comments, Thank you).

You still didn’t say how Raffaele’s DNA could have ended up on a clasp in a sealed room, of a sealed house, if he hadn’t been in that room. Unless you can prove that the DNA flew from his apartment, through the key hole into the room and onto the clasp.
PhanuelB said

am February 2 2010 @ 1:07 pm

Probably the most important deficiency in the Italian judicial system is that the court record for this case is not fully available for public inspection. This has meant that important public debate such as this is based on second-hand incomplete information, often taken out of context and sometimes simply wrong.

In the United States anyone can go to a courthouse and make copies of any non-sealed court document. They can scan it and place it on the internet without limitation. In Federal cases and some state courts documents are available now on court web-sites. In the Carlo Parlanti case, documents and transcripts, chosen by the Defense, are available right now for download.

It’s important in a democracy that the public can come in and see for themselves if justice has been done. The record of Amanda’s case is presumably available at the courthouse but Italian law apparently does not allow “digitization” and “publication” of such documents. We need it here and we don’t have it.

In this case the pro-Amanda camp has largely relied on reports from major media outlets dealing with the argument that she didn’t do it because Rudy did it. The anti-Amanda camp tends to show up with edited accounts of her interrogation and say why did she lie? The pro-Amanda information is of course only as good as the reporters and organizations that gathered it, but that is usually pretty good. The interrogation evidence, particularly as presented here, often does not tell the whole story. It shouldn’t be in court unless the defense has access to ALL electronic records of her interrogations so they can present what they deem to be important.

I would also be curious to know the status of any and all recordings of Amanada’s interrogation. Has each and every policeman or prosecutor who was there been asked under oath what they know about electronic recordings of the interrogation? It goes that without saying that all such records would be fully available to the defense through discovery.

If electronic records of her interrogation were never made, it’s because a corrupt prosecution team wanted to make sure that only their version of what happened would come out. Surely we cannot be asked to take the word of a prosecutor who has now been convicted of corruption in another case.
John Winters said

am February 2 2010 @ 1:31 pm

Terrible Trivium says:

“Amanda might easily have ventured in out of curiosity having seen the glass.”
in bare feet?
there was broken glass all over the place”

Apparently, the broken glass was all over Romanelli’s bed which apparently had no clothes on it when she left.
Do you ever get the feeling that all those criminal documents Romanelli types up for a job have gone to her head. The only person who could tell us the truth about what was in that room is the burgling killer who
didn’t bother taking her”jewellery.” Aaaaah.
MikeW said

am February 2 2010 @ 1:32 pm

The truth seems to be lost over the internet. Each side keeps repeating themselves, ad nauseum.

When the complete report is issued on Mar.4th, things may change.

This is somewhat similar to the Kennedy assassination. No one could believe that Oswald did it alone, or that only his bullets could have done all that damage.

This led to a vast amount of misinterpretation of evidence, making it look like more were involved. Once it was out there, it wouldn’t go away. People are still convinced Oswald had accomplices.

I fear this is what has happened to Amanda and Raffaele. Despite overwhelming circumstantial evidence, much of it their own fault, they are innocent.

Why didn’t Rudy Guede scream out their names from the moment he was apprehended?

Doesn’t it mean anything that they barely knew him, and never did anything remotely like this in their lives – utterly out of character?

Sometimes the truth is simple!
CHAR said

am February 2 2010 @ 1:35 pm

@PhanuelB, the “interogation” you speak of a) lasted less than 2 hours and b) was made when Amanda was a witness, not a suspect, hence it wasn’t taped. She’d come to the station on her own and they weren’t planning to talk to her. The very second she became a suspect, by admitting she was there, the interview stopped. In nany case, that confession was never used against her in court. It was her hand-written confession– that she made voluntarily– that was used.

Mignini’s case is being appealed, just liked Amanda’s. The charge against him is more about inter-departmental politics than any actual corruption. Mignini claims he was authorized to do the wiretaps, others say not. Unlike Amanda, he’s already been cleared of the charges once. In any case, there has been no charge of abuse of power in the Meredith Kercher murder trial.

@ Mary H, nice try on the alibis, but you still haven’t been able to produce an innocent reason why Rafaelle to this day insists that Amanda was not in his aprtment from 9pm-1am. Yes, he says he thinks she is too “sweet” to have done the murder but he will not alibi her for that time period. Basically he’s saying, “I don’t know where she was for four hours, but I don’t think she’s involved.” Amanda insists she was with Rafealle the whole time. SEE THE PROBLEM?

Also, Amanda started lying before she ever saw a policeman. She lied to Filomena about having called the police to the cottage. She never called the police and Rafaelle only did after officers were already at the cottage.
msanc said

am February 2 2010 @ 1:39 pm

grim said

am February 2 2010 @ 12:33 pm

“And by the way robin. you don’t need to know another language in order to exchange money to buy bleach. ”

There is no testimony of AK buying bleach. (The shop owner had some vague recollection a year later of seeing someone resembling her in the “cleaning products” aisle of the two-aisle store.) Another BS story from the haters.
@ Renee said

am February 2 2010 @ 1:48 pm

Reading through the posts above, it looks to me as if the bloggers supporting Amanda are even “crazier” than the one against her.
IVSTITIA said

am February 2 2010 @ 1:50 pm

“If electronic records of her interrogation were never made, it’s because a corrupt prosecution team wanted to make sure that only their version of what happened would come out”

Why do you make such assumption? The police almost never tapes depositions by witnesses. The law doesn’t require it and it’s not done.

The law (art. 141/bis of the Code of Penal Procedure) requires taping of only interrogations of suspects held under detention, if the interrogation occurs outside of a regular hearing.

Amanda was interrogated as a witness by the police. Mignini wasn’t even present. Once she was declared a suspect because she made self incriminating statements, the interrogation had to stop and no more questions could be asked. At that point the police had to tell the suspect Amanda that she was advised to seek legal counsel, and also warned that from that moment on any spontaneous declaration could be used against her.

The self incriminating statement which made her transition from witness to suspect is not admissible in court (see art. 63 of the Code of Penal Procedure). This rule is also reinforced by a Supreme Court decision of 1996, which was used to exclude these declarations from the trial against Amanda for Murder. However those self incriminating statements could be used in the Lumumba vs. Knox case, because although art. 63 prohibits the use of self incriminating statements against herself, it admits them as incrimination against others.
colonelhall said

am February 2 2010 @ 2:10 pm

John Winter says:

“Terrible Trivium says:”

No John Winter I am Terrible Trivium!
Kim Bailey said

am February 2 2010 @ 2:12 pm

Mary H. Knox explain that she accused Lamumba becuase the Italian police beat her. Is she still claiming that?

“She went to a Jesuit high school and had to be in the top 15% of high school students to get into UW.” I went of a Catholic high school and was in the top 3% of my class. That is proof that I am not capable of murder.

Not only are your post irrelevant they are very stupid.
colonelhall said

am February 2 2010 @ 2:14 pm

John Winters:
“Do you ever get the feeling that all those criminal documents Romanelli types up for a job have gone to her head. ”

Now you are attacking the flatmates. Do you think that there anyone involved with this case that is not stupid or a liar?

No! Don’t say “Amanda” there is absolutely no way that one could not say that she is a liar.
Kim Bailey said

am February 2 2010 @ 2:20 pm

Mary H. How many law suits have there been in the US alone against the Catholic church because some priest has ruined little boys and girls lives? To put it politely.

The rest of you, I apologize for going back to that stupid post.
Kim Bailey said

am February 2 2010 @ 2:27 pm

John Winters “She could not get to her own … without going past Romanelli’s room” Could you explain why she would go and take a shower after seeing “the door of which was open with broken glass on the floor” Who would take a shower after finding the front door open, bedroom in disarray, and blood on the bathroom sink?
Kim Bailey said

am February 2 2010 @ 2:34 pm

Shane said: “Knox and Sollecito were waiting in the garden.” You couldn’t be more wrong. Knox was at the door holding the mop. And I am sure you have heard her lame attempt to explain her reason for having the mop. Some ignorance about a pipe bursting the night before at Raffaele’s.
Al-Fakh Yugoudh said

am February 2 2010 @ 2:42 pm

Amanda and Raffaele are two coke-heads. Everybody in Perugia knew it.

Raffele had also a conviction for drug possession in his own hometown.

When you get too much drugs in your system you do crazy things, whether you went to Catholic school or not, or whether your sister is a police officer or not.

Why don’t the FOAkers realize they are defending a drug addict and murderer? What’s wrong with Seattle?

It must be because they’re just a bunch of soft on crime drug smoking liberals. I bet Mary H. stands for Marijuana Hashish.
billyryan said

am February 2 2010 @ 2:53 pm

two very important things have happened since amandas conviction.the judge refused a defence request for an independant review of the dna evidence believing he was qualified to evaluate it himself,and he accepted that the knife was a part of the muder.since then ten respected dna experts have have condemed the lcn test on the knife being any proof of merridiths dna.despire what the amanda haters say no independant forenzic expert has supported the prosecutions assertions.
as the trial came to a close mignini was cleared of all charges of coruption and the judge had to take it for granted that he would also be cleared at the appeal by the prosecution.but he was wrong, mignini is now convicted of planting evidence of trying to blackmail a prosecuter and attempting to put innocent people in jail.suddenly the reason for not taping the interrogation,or destroying the tapes afterwards,the deliberate destroying of computer hardrives,when no evidence of amanda and raffaela could be found at the crime scene legitimally, migninis old tricks came into play he could have got away with it too only for the panel of judges in florence.whoever made the call of the bombscare where merridiths two mobile phones were found was very likely to be the person who dumped them there.mignini made sure that this person was not identified,he did not leak this name to the press.a judge at one of the detension hearings took mignini word that amanda and raffaela should be detained for fear that they might flee or interfere with the evidence,in the light of mignini conviction that judge must now be avoiding looking at himself in mirrows.
the judge now in summing up his conviction and sentence,has to show total disreguard for international dna experts.rubbish the three judges in florrence and try to save face.or just mabey he can decide that this misscarriage of justice has gone far enough.
anyway congrats to renee perrault and all involved in this fundraiser,dont get too concerned about the amanda haters who post here.they are getting paid to do it they are very few in number they just post under a lot of different names.
Pico Bella said

am February 2 2010 @ 3:06 pm

Your all very sick people shame on you. Harry Rag said it all she is gulty and her mother isnt much better.
Enzo Zoff said

am February 2 2010 @ 3:09 pm

It doesn’t matter how many blogs you read you will ALWAYS find the same ridiculous arguments put forward by proAmanda stooges who are driven by the PR machine that was hired to to discredit and distort the truth.

If you carefully analyse the MO of a typical one-eyed proKnox supporter it follows the same pattern:

1. all their comments are never referenced; usually, their source is the US media of their choosing, like Donald Trump;

2. they will make ‘blanket’ statements like ‘it’s anti-american sentiment’ which can never be fully debated let alone rebutted to fools and idiots;

3. at best, they will state half-truths like ‘italian juries are not sequestered’ but will ALWAYS neglect to admit that it’s the same in the US;

4. when they do say the entire truth it leaves you speechless : ‘… the italian judiciary is different to ours.” Riveting stuff.

5. you will never, ever, ever get a positive view of the italians, like maybe, ‘every defendant gets an automatic appeal – gee, even we don’t have that’ or the like, never;

6. they make off-the cuff, throw-away lines like: ‘it’s a travesty of justice’; but NEVER articulate the injustice. It just is !!!;

7. they will manipulate the truth to their ends, e.g., Ciolino on 48Hours has 3 people running on the asphalt road and then with a straight face says: ‘listen, listen, no noise’. But no-one has the courage to say that the 3 suspects ran up an IRON stairway that which apparently is deafening. What does that say about the integrity of your media?[ My suspicion is that Winters is really Ciolino;]

8. like 3 year olds with soiled nappies, their stupidity has no bounds; ‘don’t travel to Italy in protest, boycott italian products.’ That’s why the French love you so much;

9. the double-standards, hypocrisy and sheer myopia displayed by proK supporters is nothing less than sad; I actually get embarrassed reading some of their comments. Eg, you will always get negative association linking an isolated incident that was then meant to prove the whole; but when one attempt to rebut this with say the Cermis incident or Guantenamo Bay injustices proK, supporters get indignant: ‘ …. it doesn’t equate’, they say;

10. Rationality, common sense and logic does not exist within the proK mindset mainly because it cannot be allowed to exist; Eg: Timothy Egan writing in TNYT: ‘ … there is no DNA evidence supporting Knox’s involvement and whatever there is has been contaminated or tainted, BUT, there is for Guede’! But Tim, Guede points the finger at K/S. Yes, but G is a liar! But Tim, K & S changed their story 4 times! Yes, but that’s because she was beaten by the police. But Tim, she confessed on the stand that the written confession was freely given by her as a ‘gift’. Yes, but she didn’t have a lawyer present; she was upset; she was confused; she was under influence; she was on her periods, etc ……;

11. ProK supporters always, invariably, argue their case ‘piece-meal’, that is, they will pick on just ONE piece of evidence, attack it whilst totally dis-regarding the rest; this is a tried and tested political PR strategy based on the premise that the ordinary person cannot handle/digest/process more than one piece of information, a variant of the ‘divide and conquer rule’ dictum;

12. it’s impossible to challenge, correct or debate their point of view without being accused of being proProsecution;

13. which reminds me of another proven political strategy: ‘ … debate the issue; if you cannot, attack the person; if this fails, invent distractions’. Eg: Magnini;

14. to find K/S innocent, YOU have to do ALL the work,i.e., you would have to disregard the testimony of 80 witnesses, scientific evidence ( but not for Guede), all circumstantial evidence and all post behavioural displays by K/S. In fact, one would have to resist with every fibre in his body everything that tells him ’something just doesn’t add up here”. In other words, you will NEVER, EVER, EVER, EVER see or hear an element of doubt, suspicion or questioning about K’s testimony from ProK spouters;

15, Because Amanda Knox was an innocent, young, attractive (??), studious, fun-loving Jesuit all America gal, she could NOT have committed murder. ProK supporters will never accept that EVERY murder, at some point in their life, were also young, innocent and fun-loving – google: Matthew Hardman in Wales for a comparison, Winters;

16. Circumstantial evidence has been the prime mover in convictions prior to the reliance on recent advancement in DNA forensic science for centuries. But in Knox’s case circumstantial evidence is totally dismissed because, well, it just doesn’t suite proKnox and no other reason;

17. lastly, NEVER, will you get a balanced comment; e.g., something like: ” from what ‘I’ know, based on the limited information provided by the ‘media’ ‘I’ say that it would ‘appear’ that the italian judiciary did its best to be ‘fair’ BUT ‘I’ ‘feel’ that the jury ‘may’ have got the verdict wrong. NO, it’s always unfair, corrupt and incompetent and usually from dipsticks who freely preface it with: ‘ … I haven’t followed the case AND I haven’t read the Micheli judgement, but ….. “.

What is at stake here is more than posting an ‘opinion’ we think makes a difference.

What does make a difference is to note how we get manipulated by the media/PR agencies and sheer idiots acting on their behalf.

Dixi
Al-Fakh Yugoudh said

am February 2 2010 @ 3:11 pm

billyryan:

Your writing skills are horrible. You must have gone to the same Jesuit school Amanda went to.
Chase Roper said

am February 2 2010 @ 3:13 pm

It would be awesome if Nancy Grace would comment here. That would be a “get.”
brickhouse said

am February 2 2010 @ 3:17 pm

The rhetoric on the pro-Amanda side of this issue is disappointing, but familiar. The name calling on both sides is childish and only obfuscates the real issues. There’s more heat than light being shed, which is a shame.

I was an Amanda/Raffaele innocence supporter for quite a number of months, then I was challenged by a few informed people on the superficiality of my arguments (There’s “no” evidence, the police are thugs, Guede did it alone, Italian courts are backward, the prosecutor’s a monster, etc). In response, I researched the issues of the case. A deeper examination of the actual physical evidence (especially the delayed repositioning of Ms Kercher’s body), of the checks and balances of the Italian justice system and a number of other detailed and well-documented data points resulted in an evolution of my position.

Suffice it to say that Amanda and Raffaele received a fair trial which included multiple levels of independent judicial review. The evidence is more than compelling – it can be argued on both sides, but it cannot be ignored or dismissed out of hand with any degree of intellectual honesty.

I find the FOA-syle arguments inherently superficial, as mine once were.

And then we have this gem:

“Mary H. said
February 2 2010 @ 7:43 am

jiminy wrote: “I just read an interesting assertion. It’s claimed that the 46 day delay on the collection of the bra clasp was due to the DEFENSE.”

Guess what, jiminy. I just read an interesting assertion, too. It’s claimed you are and your buddies are all morons. No documentation necessary.”

Nice. It just so happens that jiminy is correct. The Italian system permits both the prosecution and the defense to be present during evidence collection. The delay was the result of the defense having problems setting a suitable date. Does that mean they’re guilty? No. Innocent? No. It does mean that the investigators can’t be painted with quite as large of an “incompetence” brush, though.
brickhouse said

am February 2 2010 @ 3:28 pm

ps – Excellent post Enzo. Good observations.
CHAR said

am February 2 2010 @ 3:31 pm

billyryan said
am February 2 2010 @ 2:53 pm
____

Wow. That is a whole lot of inaccuracy, delusion and bad spelling in just one post. Bravo. You win the Biggest Idiot in The Thread Award, hands down.
Al-Fakh Yugoudh said

am February 2 2010 @ 3:33 pm

To offset the STUPID BOYCOTT of Italian products and travel advocated by the foakers and Trump, I propose that WE, who happen to believe the Italians did the right thing in this court case, start INCREASING THE PURCHASE OF ITALIAN PRODUCTS, and even start booking out NEXT VACATION TO ITALY, if possible, preferably Perugia and Assisi.

I’m going to the store right now. I need some Prosciutto di Parma and some Chianti, and for dessert, some Perugina chocolates.
msanc said

am February 2 2010 @ 3:37 pm

Enzo Zoff said: “It doesn’t matter how many blogs you read you will ALWAYS find the same ridiculous arguments put forward by proAmanda stooges…”

“2. they will make ‘blanket’ statements…”

Irony, much?
Jeanette said

am February 2 2010 @ 3:52 pm

am February 2 2010 @ 3:09 pm
Enzo Zoff said: Well, a lot of stuff.

The problem is, Enzo could well be describing any of the “hate Amanda” posters. Actually, I see that the haters get very emotional while the “Amanda innocent” people tend to be a lot more logical in their posts.

Just an observation.
Chuk said

am February 2 2010 @ 4:10 pm

“the judge now in summing up his conviction and sentence,has to show total disreguard for international dna experts”

The Judge only has to be concerned with people that are directly involved in the case, in this case the Italian DNA experts. Why would he have to consider outside influence ???

“rubbish the three judges in florrence”
Absolutely no connection with the GR, AK and RS case at all.

Couple of things:-
1. Many cases, even ones where a body hasn’t been found, are successfully tried on ‘circumstantial evidence’. Being circumstantial dosn’t automatically mean they should not be allowed, but cases are more difficult to prove.
2. Motive does not have to be proven in a crime to gain a conviction.

Lastly, in the Italian judicial system in any DNA testing for a major crime, the defence are invited to attend. AK’s defence declined this invitation, and therefore they have no course to challange the findings at a later stage. Neither does the Judge have to throw open the results of the test for further testing as all proper procedures could have been verified by the defence ‘if they had chosen to’ at the earlier stage.

I don’t know if AK and RS are innocent or guilty as I am not party to all the presented evidence in the case, but it looks like that there wasn’t enough argumental strength in the defence team to refute the evidence presented. If there are so many claims now of a miscariage of justice, then these points should have been made in a manner that could be substantiated, during the trial. This does not seem to have happened, and I would have to trust that the presented facts convinced the jury of their guilt. The due report should clarify this outcome.
CHAR said

am February 2 2010 @ 4:13 pm

Jeanette said
am February 2 2010 @ 3:52 pm

am February 2 2010 @ 3:09 pm
Enzo Zoff said: Well, a lot of stuff.

The problem is, Enzo could well be describing any of the “hate Amanda” posters. Actually, I see that the haters get very emotional while the “Amanda innocent” people tend to be a lot more logical in their posts.

Just an observation.
____

Why do you think we “hate” Amanda? We don’t hate her, we believe her to be guilty. Using your logic, the “Amanda is innocent” posters must “love” Amanda. Do you love Amanda?

As for your assertion about emotion, please re-read billyryan’s post above.

Your post makes little to no sense.

Just an observation.
Mary H. said

am February 2 2010 @ 4:27 pm

Kim Bailey, what the heck are you talking about? My point was about Amanda’s ability with the English language, not about her ability to commit murder.
Mary H. said

am February 2 2010 @ 4:33 pm

Enzo wrote: “What does make a difference is to note how we get manipulated by the media/PR agencies and sheer idiots acting on their behalf.”

Good point, Enzo. I think it would be beneficial to all of the Amanda-haters to note how manipulated they have been by the tabloids, the truejustice website, hearsay and gossip.

If you would like to feel you are not being manipulated, you are more than welcome to scour the internet on your own, instead of relying on biased sources. Many of the documents from the trial are available; you can read those and if you have analytical skills, you will see for yourself how the truth has been misrepresented.
Is my IP showing? said

am February 2 2010 @ 4:37 pm

Why has this comment section become so important to the paid-to-blog members of Amanda’s million dollar PR team?

All the usual suspects are here, with the same tired, old lies about the evidence.

I just can’t figure out why they are out in force here…

Collecting IP addys perhaps?
CHAR said

am February 2 2010 @ 4:45 pm

Mary H., most of us that believe Amanda guilty (yet do not “hate” her) HAVE, in fact, taken a lot of time to “scour the internet” and read about the trial, in many cases in the orginal Italian.

My experience is that the Amanda-lovers get all their information from the Marriot PR firms talking points, which is why they all harp on the same things over and over and sound so alike.

BTW, you still haven’t explained why Rafaelle doesn’t alibi Amanda.

And, while you are at it, why did Rafaelle feel it necessary to come up the an explanation (easily proven to be a lie, BTW) for how Meredith’s DNA was on the knife? If the knife is “discredited” why did Rafaelle feel it vital to explain away the DNA by claiming he once pricked Meredith while preparing dinner?
Al-Fakh Yugoudh said

am February 2 2010 @ 4:45 pm

“Many of the documents from the trial are available”

Original documents?

Show us!

The only original documents available on the net are the Micheli’s report, GIP Matteini’s report and the recordings of all of Amanda’s testimony, which are no longer available since Quotidiano.net took it off its site.

None of the above are available in English, therefore only a couple of us could understand them.

Most people therefore rely totally on the media reports and on the blogs.

And you think your judgement is better than the judges and jurors who sat in court every single day and listened to all of the evidence?

PLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAASSSSSSSSSSSEEEEEE!
Chuk said

am February 2 2010 @ 4:56 pm

Mary H said:-
“you will see for yourself how the truth has been misrepresented.”

Are you saying that the truth has been misrepresented in the media or in the trial ?? If you imply ‘in the media’ then that must cover all sides of the case, both for and against Amanda. If you imply ‘in the trial’, then you have to, again, cover all sides. By your own admission, the only outcome is that the people in the positions to prosecute, defend and try the case came to the only known ‘truth’ there is ?? If something can be put on the table during the appeal process which changes this ‘truth’, then that change would also have to be accepted.
Mary H. said

am February 2 2010 @ 5:05 pm

Kim wrote: “You couldn’t be more wrong. Knox was at the door holding the mop. And I am sure you have heard her lame attempt to explain her reason for having the mop. Some ignorance about a pipe bursting the night before at Raffaele’s.”

Kim, this is at least the second or third time you have claimed that. Last night I gave you the link to the deposition of the responding officers, who testified that when they arrived, Amanda and Raffaele were waiting in the garden, I will give it to you again; if you don’t look at it this time, I will assume you are much happier with your beliefs about what happened than with the truth.

http://unionesarda.ilsole24ore.com/Articoli/Articolo/105013

It must be very confusing for people who get their information from truejustice when they find out they have been fooled.

True justice is run by independently wealthy retired men with nothing but time on their hands. They never have to work or raise funds, in contrast to Amanda’s family. One of them is motivated by a personal vendetta against members of the Seattle legal community, and one is motivated by an intense drive to control other people’s knowledge. Nobody there is motivated by justice. If they were, they would spend their money in different ways.
Chuk said

am February 2 2010 @ 5:05 pm

Hey, do all you bloggers realise that all the combined time spent writing on this case probably adds up to 26+ years. There’s another life wasted…… why not shut down your connection for an hour and donate the broadband charges to the Haiti relief fund. If your on ‘free’ chuck in a dollar.

Have a nice day.
PhanuelB said

am February 2 2010 @ 5:12 pm

Al-Fakh Yugoudh’s 4:45 post is interesting

We agree that the court record is not available to the public. Blogs (truejustice is an example) are indeed a terrible place to get information. Media reports are generally a pretty good place to get information. I’m sorry but CNN, CBS, ABC, and the New York Times exist to deliver accurate information to their readers. Sometimes they make mistakes. They all have procedures in place for correcting improperly sourced material.

The fact that this trial was conducted in Italian is irrelevant. We can get a good idea of what we’re interested in by using the google translator. We’ll take care of the translation. The point is that those with an interest in the case choose what documents we want, we need access to everything, and we should be able to publish anything we get our hands on to the internet without limitation.

“And you think your judgement is better than the judges and jurors who sat in court every single day and listened to all of the evidence?”

That’s how democracies work. People who weren’t there sometimes need to come in and see if justice was done properly. We can’t do it here because a corrupt and dysfunctional Italian judicial system doesn’t want the world to see what happened.

Here is an example of how it’s supposed to work:
http://www.thepeoplevscarloparlanti.com/atti/indiex%20from%20defence.htm
Chuk said

am February 2 2010 @ 5:18 pm

Emmm… Mary H.
I just went looking at this article you have been directing people to:-

http://unionesarda.ilsole24ore.com/Articoli/Articolo/105013

This is a ‘Newspaper Report’ from the Italian Cronicle, on the witness testimony. There is nothing to say that it is complete ??? Also, you have warned us off of reading the ‘misrepresented’ truth in the media. Is the media the only thing you have been reading ?????
Mary H. said

am February 2 2010 @ 5:21 pm

Chuck, if you have a problem with accepting the article’s report on the responding police officers’ testimony, feel free to replace my link with a better source.
Guest said

am February 2 2010 @ 5:25 pm

Quentin Zoerhoff said

am February 1 2010 @ 4:49 pm

Harry Rag seems not to have a job but instead posts the same discredited nonsense more or less promiscuously on every site he can find…

HAVE YOU _HEARD_ of John WINTERS/[insert name of whatever but his style of writing is so congruent you can pick which one he wrote after 3 martinis?]

This chick is only going to get herself in more trouble at her appeal. The day she comes up with a decent alibi will be the day hell freezes over, in which case she should pick up a pair of skis for the afterlife (though I doubt very much she believes in God)
CHAR said

am February 2 2010 @ 5:25 pm

So, PhanuelB, you can’t see all the documents you want to (yet), but you are able to make the judgement that the Italian justuce system is “corrupt and dysfunctional.” Based on what? The fact that the Italian system is different than the system in the US?

In the US, Amanda would have been required to swear an oath not to lie in court, wouldn’t have been allowed to speak up in court whenever she chose and wouldn’t be entitled to an automatic appeal either. She would also be stuck in a filthy, over-crowded prison instead of being allowed to wear her own clothes in a cell with private toilet facilities, access to a hairdresser and multiple creative outlets (dance lessons, guitar lessons, cretive-writing contests.)

Careful, PhanuelB, your xenophobia is showing (along with your FOA-approved, Marriot-generated talking points.)
CHAR said

am February 2 2010 @ 5:31 pm

Mary H, guess you are unwilling/unable to address the conflicting alibis and the ridiclous knife-pricking story.

No surprise there, as both are impossible to explain away innocently and very strong evidence of guilt.
PhanuelB said

am February 2 2010 @ 5:32 pm

@Chuk:”Hey, do all you bloggers realise that all the combined time spent writing on this case probably adds up to 26+ years. There’s another life wasted……”

I suppose those who confronted racism, or the Holocaust, or Mccarthyism were supposed to just quit becasue it took too much time.

I’m here for a good reason. I see a terrible injustice against two innocent young people. I see hate and hysteria and I think it’s the right time and place to confront it.

If it’s the right thing to do I don’t care how long it takes.
CHAR said

am February 2 2010 @ 5:37 pm

PhanuelB, “hate and hysteria” pretty much define all of your comments about the Italian justice system.

As for equating Amanda’s situation to the Holocaust or McCarthyism… wow. A wildly and shockingly inappropriate comparison.
PhanuelB said

am February 2 2010 @ 5:47 pm

@Char:”So, PhanuelB, you can’t see all the documents you want to (yet), but you are able to make the judgement that the Italian justuce system is “corrupt and dysfunctional.”

Responsible media outlets have published a lot of information on this case. And there has been important commentary from these outlets condemning this trial in the strongest terms.

The massive evidence against Rudy Guede and the implausibility of scenarios involving RS and AK form the basis of my reasoning.

Selectively chosen, second-hand, out of context information about Amanda’s statements forms the basis of the case against her as stated here. Hard evidence in the form of court documents and full unedited recordings of her interrogation is what any other Western Democracy would provide to the public in such an important case.
Chuk said

am February 2 2010 @ 5:49 pm

Mary H.
I have spent a lifetime studying propaganda. Everybody lies….. small lies, big lies, lies to make them look good, lies to make others look bad. Every conversation probably has a sprinkling of lies in it, and every third party recounting of a conversation embelishes them. Somewhere between is the truth.
Meredith is dead.
The person/s who killed her know the truth.
Even if they held their hands up and said they did it, their account would be sprinkled with lies.

Read all sides, keep an open mind. Unfortunatly people tend to believe what they want to. Is it easier to believe Amanda is innocent or guilty ?? I cant see anything substantial to make me believe that she hadn’t some part in the events. By the same token, I cant see anything to make me believe she stuck a knife in someone.
Mary H. said

am February 2 2010 @ 5:52 pm

This blog has some kind of strange formatting. You go away for awhile and there are new posts that actually were posted before your last post but you couldn’t see them then. Anyway…

Char wrote: “BTW, you still haven’t explained why Rafaelle doesn’t alibi Amanda.

And, while you are at it, why did Rafaelle feel it necessary to come up the an explanation (easily proven to be a lie, BTW) for how Meredith’s DNA was on the knife? If the knife is “discredited” why did Rafaelle feel it vital to explain away the DNA by claiming he once pricked Meredith while preparing dinner?”

My guess about the alibi is that Raffaele’s lawyers advised him to keep his mouth shut after he had made mistakes during and after his interrogation. It’s very likely he has told his lawyers that he can indeed provide an alibi for Amanda.

As for trying to come up with an explanation for the knife, obviously Raffaele was intimidated by the police to the extent that he thought making up a story about the knife would be wiser than telling the cops they were wrong. Young people do things more impulsively than mare mature people.

No one here knows what they would do when confronted with the assertion that a murder weapon has been found in his kitchen. It seems easy for us Americans — we have never lived under a Fascist government, and we know the constitution protects our right to tell the police, “That’s impossible.” Still, if you were alone with some cops who accused you of something, and you denied it, you still run the risk of the one of the cops asking, “Are you calling me a liar?”

If you think that what a confused and befuddled young person said when being lied to and tricked is strong evidence of his guilt, then I don’t agree with you.
Laughing at this Nutjob said

am February 2 2010 @ 5:56 pm

Do you Americans EVER shut up?

If you’re not commiting genocide in the Middle East, you’re doing sicko murders in Italy.
With any luck that sick bitch will be tortured by her cellmates for decades.

Use some brains you morons, she’s as guilty as sin.
Chuk said

am February 2 2010 @ 6:00 pm

Mary H. said,
“It’s very likely he has told his lawyers that he can indeed provide an alibi for Amanda.”

Maybe it was, ‘I was in the kitchen with my hands over Amanda’s ears’
CHAR said

am February 2 2010 @ 6:04 pm

Mary H, you use your imagination to create certain scenarios that explain away the conflicting alibis and the knife-pricking.

“It’s very likely he has told his lawyers that he can indeed provide an alibi for Amanda.”

“if you were alone with some cops who accused you of something, and you denied it, you still run the risk of the one of the cops asking, “Are you calling me a liar?”

Well, case closed then!

Except that Rafaelle has said since the trial that he doesn’t think she could have done it but still sticks to his assertion she wasn’t there. So no, it’s not at all “likely” that he can provide an alibi for Amanda.

And Rafaelle didn’t make his knife-pricking excuse to the cops– he made it to his father! Was his father lying to and tricking him?

Honestly, that’s about the most pathetic defense of AK & RS that I’ve ever seen. But you have done an excellent job exposing what lies behind the FOAKers defense of Amanda. They just cannot IMAGINE her having done it.
Mary H. said

am February 2 2010 @ 6:12 pm

Chuk, you may have spent a lifetime studying proaganda, but you have not spent enough time studying this case. If you knew the facts, you would know there is no middle ground.

When you write: “I can’t see anything substantial to make me believe that she hadn’t some part in the events,” what you are saying is that you believe a story that is exclusively the product of the prosecution’s imagination.

It is the same as if some villagers were to say, “She’s a witch,” and you believe them; when asked why, you respond with, “I can’t see anything substantial to make me believe that she hadn’t some part in the events.”

It is the responsibility of the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Amanda had some part in the events. It is not Amanda’s responsibility to prove she did not. One cannot prove a negative — a witch can’t prove she’s not a witch.

Study the documentation from the proceedings — note that most of what the judges write is based on speculation and conjecture — about what “might” have happened. Go to websites that provide scientific proof against the DNA findings.

Mark Waterbury:
http://www.sciencespheres.com/

Ray Turner:
http://knoxarchives.blogspot.com/

Anyone who followed this case from the beginning had no choice but to read the side that said she was guilty — that is pretty much all the media focused on in the first year. You have to do some digging if you really want to get all the information.
colonelhall said

am February 2 2010 @ 6:13 pm

Enzo Zoff and Brickhouse. Thank you for your efforts. Very well reasoned and hard to fault.

Mary H. Nice try, at least you admit that Rafael was lying. However statements such as “It’s very likely he has told his lawyers that he can indeed provide an alibi for Amanda.” are not convincing. Why is it very likely.

When you say things like “It seems easy for us Americans — we have never lived under a Fascist government,” one can see why you have been accused of xenophobia,
billyryan said

am February 2 2010 @ 6:15 pm

char you are an ape and misfortunatly not a tame one and al_gofuck_yourself amanda knox and i went to school about 5000 miles apart.

“the judge only has to be concerned with people directly involved in the case.in this case the italian dna experts.why would he have to consider outside influence”
because in convicting and sentencing two young people he accepted the prosecution evidence and rejected the defence dna experts.international dna experts who have nothing to gain and stand to be abused by apes like “char” on bloggs like this have cast grave doubt on the prosecution dna evidence.also the silence from independent dna experts supporting the prosecution dna claims is deafening.in this situation mignini cant really get a homeless man and bring a drug pusher out of jail to give evidence like he did when none of the local residence would give evidence that they saw amanda and raffaela where they were not.he needs men of reputation this time and he cant provide any

“rubbish three judges in florence”
absolutly no connection with “rg,ak,rs”case at all

the three judges have convicted mignini of abuse of power and decided that he should jailed for the safety of the public.allowing this man to investigate this murder and prosecute this case is like a bank manager giving a convicted bank robber the keys of the bank while he goes on holliday.at this stage the judge in his summing up has to completly disreguard all therios made by mignini the convicted criminal and has to look again at the claims made by the defence of abuse of power in this case.i do not know really what latitude the judge now has,but i am sure he now knows this conviction is not safe,and amanda and raffaela should get bail while waiting for the appeal
John Winters said

am February 2 2010 @ 6:16 pm

Char – stop trying to be clever about ”alibis” when you are dealing with a pair of crazy youngsters. Keep that sort of silly, pompous nonsense for Hitchcock characters.

colonelhall, you are not Pinocchio. That’s Harry Rag. therefore you must be Jiminy. Signed, Paolo Micheli.

Kim Bailey. I don’t want to get too personal Kim but a broken window wouldn’t stop ME taking a shower if I needed one!

Billy Ryan’s writing style is bloody brilliant and a breath of spring air against all the po-faced drivel from TJ.
Mary H. said

am February 2 2010 @ 6:17 pm

Char, you ask questions, and when someone tries to answer them thoughtfully, you attack them instead of saying thanks, or that you’ll think about it. I see no reason for anyone to answer any more of your questions.
CHAR said

am February 2 2010 @ 6:18 pm

Way to prove my point about your complete lack of competence in all areas, billyryan. Again, bravo.
CHAR said

am February 2 2010 @ 6:21 pm

Mary H, sharing with me the fruits of your Amanda-worshipping imagination is not “answering questions.”

Thanks, but no thanks, for your feeble efforts.
brickhouse said

am February 2 2010 @ 6:21 pm

Chuk said
am February 2 2010 @ 5:49 pm

Mary H.
I have spent a lifetime studying propaganda. Everybody lies….. small lies, big lies..

*************

The only difference is that propaganda is the systematic and deliberate use of those lies or rumors to help or harm a person, group or movement. A well-orchestrated professional PR campaign complete with specific “talking points” is an excellent example of propaganda; individual comment postings or isolated lies are not.
Mary H. said

am February 2 2010 @ 6:23 pm

colonelhall, is it also xenophobic to say the Germans lived under a Nazi government during WWII?
Chuk said

am February 2 2010 @ 6:25 pm

billyryan said,
“the three judges have convicted mignini of abuse of power and decided that he should jailed for the safety of the public.allowing this man to investigate this murder and prosecute this case is like a bank manager giving a convicted bank robber the keys of the bank while he goes on holliday”

I think you will find your timeline is a little bit off there…..how did you guys let O.J. the convicted armed robber ever play football ? Get the point…??
John Winters said

am February 2 2010 @ 6:25 pm

BTW Char, think very quickly now, (in fact, everyone can join in with this little game if they like!), where EXACTLY were you last Thursday evening at EXACTLY 9.00pm?

If you can’t say EXACTLY within 25 seconds(down to which room of the house you were in e.g. and EXACTLY what you were doing):

1. Don’t worry, I’m not going to hit you across the head to ”help” you remember.

2. Why do you expect Amanda And Raffaele to be able to perform this feat of recollection.
Mary H. said

am February 2 2010 @ 6:26 pm

Thank you, brickhouse. Harry Rag and Enzo Zoff provide ideal illustrations of your description of the truejustice website.

“A well-orchestrated professional PR campaign complete with specific “talking points” is an excellent example of propaganda…”
Al-Fakh Yugoudh said

am February 2 2010 @ 6:32 pm

PhalluselB: “The fact that this trial was conducted in Italian is irrelevant. We can get a good idea of what we’re interested in by using the google translator.”

I’ve been called for jury duty in a few weeks. The summons says one must be able to understand English to be a juror. Do you think there is a reason for that English proficiency requirement? The summons makes no reference to the possibility to use Google Translator. Why can’t jurors use Google Translators in America?
Al-Fakh Yugoudh said

am February 2 2010 @ 6:35 pm

PhalluselB: “People who weren’t there sometimes need to come in and see if justice was done properly.”

Nobody prevented you from buying a plane ticket and going to Perugia. The trial sessions were open to the public.
Chuk said

am February 2 2010 @ 6:41 pm

Brickhouse, I totally agree with your comment,

“The only difference is that propaganda is the systematic and deliberate use of those lies or rumors to help or harm a person, group or movement. A well-orchestrated professional PR campaign complete with specific “talking points” is an excellent example of propaganda; individual comment postings or isolated lies are not.”

This is what Amanda’s PR company has been employed to do, and what TJMK also do albeit, unpaid. However, propaganda can also be used by individuals to boost their standing in society, this can take the form of an isolated lie,or indeed an individual posting. The momentium or the desired belief in the statement generates the propaganda. Telling a lie on your resume is propaganda.
brickhouse said

am February 2 2010 @ 6:42 pm

Mary H. said
am February 2 2010 @ 6:26 pm

Thank you, brickhouse. Harry Rag and Enzo Zoff provide ideal illustrations of your description of the truejustice website.

“A well-orchestrated professional PR campaign complete with specific “talking points” is an excellent example of propaganda…”

*****

It exists on both sides of the issue.
CHAR said

am February 2 2010 @ 6:42 pm

John Winters said
am February 2 2010 @ 6:25 pm

BTW Char, think very quickly now, (in fact, everyone can join in with this little game if they like!), where EXACTLY were you last Thursday evening at EXACTLY 9.00pm?

If you can’t say EXACTLY within 25 seconds(down to which room of the house you were in e.g. and EXACTLY what you were doing):

1. Don’t worry, I’m not going to hit you across the head to ”help” you remember.

2. Why do you expect Amanda And Raffaele to be able to perform this feat of recollection.
____

Nice try, John, but I didn’t find out on Friday that my roommate wasn’t murdered the night before and thus my activities of that night aren’t burned into my brain. Most people alive at the time can tell you exactly what they were doing when they heard President Kennedy was dead, all these many years later. It’s the shock that makes it stick it ones mind.

And, for what it’s worth, no one has asked AK & RS to provide details down to the second. What they did ask was where they were the night before and, from the very beginning, they couldn’t tell a straight story about it.

Rafaelle first tried to claim they were at a party, but then he switched to Amanda’s story about being home and then said that was “a load of rubbish” and he’d been home and she’d been out between 9pm and 1am. Amanda stuck to her “at Rafaelle’s” story until she heard he was no longer alibing her and then tried to frame Patrick for the murder, claiming she was there but too in shock to remember it. Once Patrick was exonerated (with no help from Amanda), she switched back to her “at Rafaelle’s” alibi.

Now, if I was being questioned by the police about my own activities last Thursday, I could probably tell them my night was much like the scenario described by Rafaelle in one of his many alibis. I do know for sure we had a late dinner and watched some programs on the internet. I wouldn’t be sure of the exact times, but my internet activity would MATCH my story, which was not the case with RS & AK.

I know you want those “crazy youngsters” to be held to a different standard than normal, decent human beings. I just can’t figure out why.
Al-Fakh Yugoudh said

am February 2 2010 @ 6:45 pm

Mary H. (Marijuana Hashish): “It seems easy for us Americans — we have never lived under a Fascist government, and we know the constitution protects our right to tell the police, “That’s impossible.” Still, if you were alone with some cops who accused you of something, and you denied it, you still run the risk of the one of the cops asking, “Are you calling me a liar?””

Italy has been a democracy since 1945. Mussolini was deposed on July 25, 1943. His Salo’ Republic in Nazi occupied Northern Italy was dismantled on April 25, 1945.

Raffaele has never lived under Fascism either since he was born only 25 years ago.

Mary H. stop smoking dope and buy a history book.
Chuk said

am February 2 2010 @ 6:49 pm

Mary H. said
am February 2 2010 @ 6:26 pm

“Thank you, brickhouse. Harry Rag and Enzo Zoff provide ideal illustrations of your description of the truejustice website.

“A well-orchestrated professional PR campaign complete with specific “talking points” is an excellent example of propaganda…””

***************************
@Mary H.
Amanda’s parents and FOAK are the ones paying for the professional PR campaign !!!!!! You’ve forgotton which side you are on………….
Al-Fakh Yugoudh said

am February 2 2010 @ 6:49 pm

Mary Hashish: “is it also xenophobic to say the Germans lived under a Nazi government during WWII?”

Yes, if you make that reference to someone who wasn’t born before 1945.
brickhouse said

am February 2 2010 @ 6:51 pm

John Winters said
am February 2 2010 @ 6:25 pm

BTW Char, think very quickly now, (in fact, everyone can join in with this little game if they like!), where EXACTLY were you last Thursday evening at EXACTLY 9.00pm?

*********

I have no idea, because nothing life-changing occurred to me the following Friday morning. If a good friend had been murdered the night before, my recollection of that evening would have “saved” on my mental hard drive much more than your randomly selected “last Thursday” example.
Al-Fakh Yugoudh said

am February 2 2010 @ 6:55 pm

Why would a totally innocent person feel the need to hire a Public Relation firm in a Court case to do propaganda on your behalf?

The only other person I know to do that is Silvio Berlusconi (who owns a media empire to do such propaganda).

Amanda and Silvio should talk to each other about strategy. Well, one day they might both meet each other in the prison courtyard. God willing!
wait a minute said

am February 2 2010 @ 6:59 pm

John Winters said
am February 2 2010 @ 6:25 pm
BTW Char, think very quickly now, (in fact, everyone can join in with this little game if they like!), where EXACTLY were you last Thursday evening at EXACTLY 9.00pm?
————————————–

wait just a second, John

to be fair, your test would have to include a traumatic event on Friday that resulted in the police interviewing us about the events of Thurs & Fri

further, we’d have to be repeating our answers in the face of continued police questioning over the weekend and into this week

to wit, we would have been re-telling our ‘what I did on Thursday’ story for the 4th day in a row now

there’s just no getting around the fact that Amanda & Raffaele were basically asked what they did the night before

yet they can’t even agree on whether they’d had sex together (day 6 of their relationship)

it’s telling that, to this day, some 2 years later, they still haven’t been able to come up with matching versions, or with versions that matched known facts

I smell 2 rats
brickhouse said

am February 2 2010 @ 7:07 pm

Mary H. said
am February 2 2010 @ 6:23 pm

colonelhall, is it also xenophobic to say the Germans lived under a Nazi government during WWII?

*****

I re-read your post carefully. In my initial reading I felt as if you were implying that the current police in Italy are representatives of a Fascist government. It was rather offensive.

In my slower re-read, I gleaned that you may have meant that the history of Italy included Fascism, whereas the US’s didn’t. I think you meant it the second way, but it can be easily construed either way.
Al-Fakh Yugoudh said

am February 2 2010 @ 7:11 pm

“BTW Char, think very quickly now, (in fact, everyone can join in with this little game if they like!), where EXACTLY were you last Thursday evening at EXACTLY 9.00pm?”

IF I DON’T REMEMBER EXACTLY.

HOWEVER I KNOW FOR SURE I DIDN’T HEAR ANY BLACK MEN RAPING ANY OF MY FRIENDS IN MY HOUSE WHILE I WAS COVERING MY EARS.

AND THERE IS NO WAY I’M GOING TO COME UP WITH SUCH STORY UNLESS I’M SUBJECTED TO WATERBOARDING IN GUANTANAMO BAY AND I’M SPECIFICALLY ASKED TO SAY EXACTLY THAT UNDER THREAT OF TORTURE.
brickhouse said

am February 2 2010 @ 7:17 pm

“HOWEVER I KNOW FOR SURE I DIDN’T HEAR ANY BLACK MEN RAPING ANY OF MY FRIENDS IN MY HOUSE WHILE I WAS COVERING MY EARS.”

***

Slam dunk.
wait a minute said

am February 2 2010 @ 7:31 pm

“PhanuelD Student” wrote:

“That’s how democracies work. People who weren’t there sometimes need to come in and see if justice was done properly. We can’t do it here because a corrupt and dysfunctional Italian judicial system doesn’t want the world to see what happened.”
———————————————

Other than the OJ trial, it is hard to think of a trial with more of the international press corps in attendance.

This was an OPEN trial. Open for the WORLD to see.

That’s why everyone on this blog is talking about it!

Further, Italy is, in point of fact, a DEMOCRATIC nation – a G8 Nation, no less.

(Haven’t you heard? They executed Mussolini 65 years ago and outlawed fascist political parties under their constitution.)

Your xenophobic rants do not speak well of you or your education.
PhanuelB said

am February 2 2010 @ 7:40 pm

@FakU:”I’ve been called for jury duty in a few weeks. The summons says one must be able to understand English to be a juror… Why can’t jurors use Google Translators in America?”

And they should speak Italian to be a juror in an Italian proceeding. Democracy means that the public can come in and inspect the trial record. If you don’t speak the language used in the trial they you have to get it translated. Google Translator would be a helpful tool to focus in on which documents were important. People who don’t speak the language of the trial and who weren’t there have every right to come in and inspect the quality of justice.

@FakU:”Nobody prevented you from buying a plane ticket and going to Perugia. The trial sessions were open to the public.”

Not acceptable for a Democracy. Those who weren’t there must have the ability to come in and see what happened. That’s why they have trial records. And in genuine Democracies that record is available to the general public.
Enzo Zoff said

am February 2 2010 @ 7:41 pm

@Mary H:

Firstly, I DON’T hate Amanda. I DON’T hate Raffaele, I DON’T hate Rudy. I look at them and all I see is a waste of human potential, opportunities and ruined lives.

I look at Amanda, and I see my 17 year old daughter who only last year was on a scholarship studying in Florence.

I look at their parents and family members [be it K/S/G or MK] and I think, but for the Grace of God, there go I. Truly, a parents’s nightmare.

What I DO hate is people ‘conveniently’ projecting their prejudices and views and passing them off as ‘facts and truths’; like this gem from Mary H:

“Good point, Enzo. I think it would be beneficial to all of the Amanda-haters to note how manipulated they have been by the tabloids, the truejustice website, hearsay and gossip.”

Folks, do see what I mean?

If you so much as dare challenge,refute or rebutt a proAmanda supporter, then you hate Amanda; the truejustice website is unreliable, BUT, the FOA site is the virtue of truth, justice and the American way; we ‘AmandaHaters should note how manipulated we have been, when in FACT, it’s the ‘AmandaHaters who continually point out the crap in the American media!

But that’s not all, folks, there’s more:

“Many of the documents from the trial are available; [ you mean like the Micheli judgement?] you can read those and if you have analytical skills, you will see for yourself how the truth has been misrepresented.”

Yes Mary H, it’s because we ‘AmandaHaters’ have the analytical skills that you allude to that we ‘dare’ refute the nonsense posted on blogs!

I guess this is what msanc meant by: ‘irony, much?’

just an observation, Mary H:

dixi
John Winters said

am February 2 2010 @ 7:43 pm

Char said:

”Nice try, John, but I didn’t find out on Friday that my roommate wasn’t murdered the night before and thus my activities of that night aren’t burned into my brain”

Char that doesn’t make sense. Here I am sitting here writing this post thinking ”now I’d better keep taking perpetual note of what I’m doing here minute by minute in case my next door neighbour is being murdered just now and in 5 days, I have to recall what I was doing right now.”

Jeez Char, get a life!
John Winters said

am February 2 2010 @ 7:48 pm

Char says:

”I know you want those “crazy youngsters” to be held to a different standard than normal, decent human beings. I just can’t figure out why.”

Because when ”normal, decent human beings” are called on by the Perugian police to provide an alibi, the Perugian police haven’t destroyed three hard drives belonging to ol’ normal decent which will prove conclusively the veracity of their alibis or no.
wait a minute said

am February 2 2010 @ 7:49 pm

“PhanuelD Student” said:

“Hard evidence in the form of court documents and full unedited recordings of her interrogation is what any other Western Democracy would provide to the public in such an important case.”
————————————-

Just because you cannot read, write or speak Italian does not mean the documents are “unavailable.”

As for “full unedited recordings of…interrogation[s,]” do you think these are readily available in American cases?

For example, can I listen in on the “full unedited recordings” of the interrogations of every prisoner at Gitmo?

After all, those interrogations are MUCH more “important” to both my personal safety from terror attacks (AND my constitutional rights) than anything at stake in the case of an immature, drug-addled hippie-chick from West Seattle!
Al-Fakh Yugoudh said

am February 2 2010 @ 7:55 pm

PhallusB: Italian law prevents divulging those records on the internet to protect the privacy of the parties in the trial.

You could have gone to Perugia, taken notes or even recorded the proceedings (it was allowed in a separate room) and then used a professional translator (forget Google, that’s garbage)

Why don’t you want to go to Perugia, uh? Are you scared of Mignini?

My brother Al-Fakh Yoras says hi too.
John Winters said

am February 2 2010 @ 7:57 pm

Okay ”wait a minute,” so there’s a traumatising event happening at my flat a few streets away right now of which I AM TOTALLY UNAWARE (if you can imagine that’s possible given your Amanda Knox fixation). Tomorrow, the police are going to ask me what I was doing right at this moment. And do you know what the answer is….I don’t know, I’m not doing anything in particular, and certainly not anything that’s gonna burn into my brain FOR NO REASON!! I’m just an ordinary person and I haven’t got a clue what I was doing when Michael Jackson died. Leave me alone or I’m gonna have to make something up!!
CHAR said

am February 2 2010 @ 7:57 pm

PhanuelB, my goodness you are tiresome. “People who don’t speak the language of the trial and who weren’t there have every right to come in and inspect the quality of justice.”

Wrong. You have no “right” to inspect anything with regard to the justice system in a foreign, sovereign nation.

The defendants and the family of the victim have had full access to all the court documents. That is their right under Italian law.

Your opinion on what is or is not “acceptable for a Democracy” is just and only that, an opinion. Personally, I think your xenophobia and endless dead-horse beating is not “acceptable” internet behavior, but I recognize it’s only my opinion and I have no “right” to prevent you from hammering on and on and on and on and on
Tony Del Balzo said

am February 2 2010 @ 7:58 pm

So tell me, Oh wizards of the word, how did the Italian Scientific unit manage to short out (destroy)three computers, which would have been very helpful to the Defense? Bad luck, on purpose or just ignorance?

Was this mistake made by the same AV guy/girl who was supposed to have recorded the interrogations but totally neglected to do so. (another convenience).

Is this the same unit that tested the kitchen 183 times before they came up with a “match” to Kricher and approximately half of all living Italians?

Also, how did the Kirchers come up with $33 million for their loss?
billyryan said

am February 2 2010 @ 8:03 pm

there an old legal principal “lied in one lied in all” now lets apply this to mignini “planted evidence in one case planted evidence in all” there is daming proof of mignini misconduct in this case.the destroying of interrogation tapes,the deliberate destroying of computer hardrives,the canvassing of drug pushers and homeless people to lie for the prosecution.the planting of dna evidence.the leaking of lies to the press.it was all allright only he was caught.those three judges in florence,just when mignini thought everyone was afraid of him.a lot of prosecution witnesess were caught lying in evidence would any of ye that are so pally with mignini tell us why only amanda knox is facing charges of slander.would any of ye amanda haters here care to tell the rest of us which gives ye the most pleasure.amanda distress at being convicted of a crime she had nothing to do with,or is it deanna or edda distress that excites ye the most
wait a minute said

am February 2 2010 @ 8:04 pm

“PhanuelD Student” wrote:

“Google Translator would be a helpful tool to focus in on which documents were important. People who don’t speak the language of the trial and who weren’t there have every right to come in and inspect the quality of justice.

@FakU:”Nobody prevented you from buying a plane ticket and going to Perugia. The trial sessions were open to the public.”

Not acceptable for a Democracy. Those who weren’t there must have the ability to come in and see what happened. That’s why they have trial records. And in genuine Democracies that record is available to the general public.”
————————————————

a) You’ve obviously never tried using Google Translator.

b) Who, exactly, should pay for the translation and reproduction of court records? The tax payer?!!!!

c) Why do you presume records do not exist merely because YOU, personally, lack the means to access them?
John Winters said

am February 2 2010 @ 8:04 pm

Al-Fakh

Incidentally, you didn’t tell us what the Italian statute of limitations says about submission of DNA items whose location is uncertain for 47 days subsequent to the establishment of crimescene.

You mentioned that the duration of the 47 days meant nothing but that only applies to items which obviously have remained untouched, unmoved, static, in one place since the establishment of crimescene. Given that the location of the bra clasp was definitely different 47 days later, how can it be submittable according to the statute of limitations and its implications.
CHAR said

am February 2 2010 @ 8:08 pm

Oh, John Winter, first it was how could anyone remember what they were doing five days ago and now you think a normal person couldn’t remember what they were doing the night before?

I’m pretty damn certain every person here will be able to tell you what they were doing tonight if you ask them tomorrow afternoon. My answer would be “Being amazed by the mental gymnastics the Friends of Amanda are willing to perform to hold on to their belief in her innocence.”

Really, John, it’s not even worth trying to interact with you because you are clearly deranged.
John Winters said

am February 2 2010 @ 8:10 pm

Char said:

”Wrong. You have no “right” to inspect anything with regard to the justice system in a foreign, sovereign nation.”

What’s all this sovereign nation nonsense? Was Pakistan a sovereign nation when a kangaroo court of criminal elements tried Daniel Pearl and found him guilty? What is the difference? Send in the US marine, they’ll sort out the sovereigns!!
CHAR said

am February 2 2010 @ 8:12 pm

And, for the second time today, a poster proves my point with their very next post.

John Winter = deranged.
John Winters said

am February 2 2010 @ 8:16 pm

Deranged?

That’s not what the guys under siege in the US embassy in Tehran were thinking back in 1979.
wait a minute said

am February 2 2010 @ 8:24 pm

John Winters said
am February 2 2010 @ 7:57 pm
Okay ”wait a minute,” so there’s a traumatising event happening at my flat a few streets away right now of which I AM TOTALLY UNAWARE (if you can imagine that’s possible given your Amanda Knox fixation). Tomorrow, the police are going to ask me what I was doing right at this moment. And do you know what the answer is….I don’t know, I’m not doing anything in particular, and certainly not anything that’s gonna burn into my brain FOR NO REASON!! I’m just an ordinary person and I haven’t got a clue what I was doing when Michael Jackson died. Leave me alone or I’m gonna have to make something up!!
—————————————–

I remember what I did LAST NIGHT, what I ate, roughly when I ate it, and I surely remember whether or not I had sex with my girlfriend

I’m also certain she did not leave the house in the middle of the night

I’ll also bet my life that my computer will confirm my recollection that I did not download & watch a movie, and that my phone records will match my recollection of the various people I talked to

I’ll make another million dollar bet that my girlfriend’s account will MATCH mine

and, yes, all of this can be achieved without the added benefit of a traumatic/discovering a dead housemate type event to really fix the moment, and the day leading up to it, in my mind

as for you, if you are not as certain of your actions in the past 24 hours, I’m starting to think I know why you are having problems with the facts of this case…
Al-Fakh Yugoudh said

am February 2 2010 @ 8:59 pm

Joint Winters said
am February 2 2010 @ 8:10 pm
“What’s all this sovereign nation nonsense? Was Pakistan a sovereign nation when a kangaroo court of criminal elements tried Daniel Pearl and found him guilty? What is the difference? Send in the US marine, they’ll sort out the sovereigns!!”

Is that what you think President Obama should do?

Order the invasion of a democratic nation member of NATO over a drug addict who murdered a roommate and was rightly convicted in accordance to the law?

And you think the US Government would do such diplomatic folly simply because there are a handful of mentally retarded stalkers who have a crush on the drug addict psycho and want to see her free so that they can stalk her and masturbate at night?

What do you think would be the political and diplomatic consequences for such action perpetrated by the “Nobel Price” winner, no less?

You’re clearly a frustrated xenophobic ugly American who is the major reason why some people overseas applaude and rejoyce when terrorists drive airplanes into skyscrapers.

Why don’t you join the Marines and show us what you can do? You’d probably shit in your pants the minute you’re dropped in foreign soil.
Mary H. said

am February 2 2010 @ 9:12 pm

brickhouse wrote: “In my slower re-read, I gleaned that you may have meant that the history of Italy included Fascism, whereas the US’s didn’t. I think you meant it the second way, but it can be easily construed either way.”

That is exactly what I meant, and I appreciate your taking the time to reread and then discuss it. In fact, I wasn’t thinking of the police at all when I used the word Fascism, I was thinking of Raffaele. I wasn’t thinking about how the police were acting, I was thinking about how Raffaele would likely respond to authority figures under the circumstances.

Italy’s families are only two generations removed from the rule of Fascism; add to that the fact that a Fascistic government was able to establish itself there in modern times, in the first place. A friend of mine with a doctorate in German has noted that political movements don’t spring out of nowhere — the groundwork must be laid. The Nazis were able to establish themselves in Germany because the German culture was prepared to accept an authoritarian approach. Apparently, Italy’s was, too.

It is very common in psychological circles these days to understand that we are all products of cultures that have survived generations, and each ethnic, national or family culture changes in very small increments over time, so we are still affected by them generations later. For example, the high occurrence of violence in the African American culture is directly a result of the violence that was perpetrated against slaves in the United States two hundred years ago.
Gary said

am February 2 2010 @ 9:14 pm

To Harry Rag;
All that evidence that was wrote in your comment is nothing but pure fabrication and speculation. First of all you can’t even consider the knife as evidence for the simple fact that it was not the murder weapon. Second of all Amanda’s DNA should be all over the house considering she lived. Third of all the garbage you said about the footprints in blood only being visible using luminal is the craziest thing I have ever heard. You will either have a footprint visible in blood to the naked eye or you will have a footprint that was already there that had blood placed on it during the crime. How do you figure there would be footprints only visible using luminal? That would only be possible if the blood was cleaned up where the footprints were which would leave more than just an outline of a footprint. It would leave evidence of the blood being smeared in a wiping motion as it was cleaned off the floor. That theory just got wiped off the list with just about all the other evidence you said. Fourth thing is the fact that the bra clasp laid on the floor for 6 weeks and was moved multiple times and handled by multiple people therefore being contaminated beyond belief and should have never been allowed in a court room as evidence. Have you ever heard of contamination? You must not live in the U.S because if you did you would know that the bra clasp would have been thrown out of the court room all the way to the moon. Fifth there was a prosecutor who is as crazy as Charles Manson prosecuting the case. Funny how Magini was convicted of abuse of his job and is now facing prison time. In the U.S this man would have never been allowed to prosecute a murder case let alone continue to work at his job period. What a joke that this freak Magini has been convicted of these crimes yet he is still allowed to practice law and prosecute people just because he is appealing his conviction. There is no way in the world this would ever take place in the U.S. And as far as the satanic Halloween ritual goes; this freak Magini tried this before with the Monster of Florence case. Do you not find it sort of strange that this man is obsessed with satanic rituals; and seeing that he couldn’t bring his theory to court in the Monster of Florence case he then proceeded to use it in the Knock case? Face it; the evidence amounts to nothing and these convictions were nothing more than the Italian government and jury being pressured by the people of Italy to convict due to all the made up stories by the news and the fact that they wanted the American girl to go to jail. One last thing I would like to say is that they have the one and only killer; and that is Gueda. Do you not find it strange that his DNA was found all over the place including in Meredith’s purse along with his footprints outlined in blood seeable to the human eye and not under the luminal light? Amanda and Solechito are 100% innocent and the evidence against them is not even close to amounting to a murder conviction. It’s also funny how Gueda’s sentence was reduced to 16 years which now makes the real killers sentence less than the wrongfully convicted ones. Your argument does not hold up. Amanda will be freed on appeal I guarantee it (Especially now that the freak has been convicted of abusing his job.)
Al-Fakh Yugoudh said

am February 2 2010 @ 9:36 pm

Mary H.: “The Nazis were able to establish themselves in Germany because the German culture was prepared to accept an authoritarian approach. Apparently, Italy’s was, too.”

Oh sure! They love dictatorships in those countries, they couldn’t wait to have one! It’s so entrenched in their cultures that they’re working to have another one. I’m sure after Angela Merkel they’ll vote for another Nazi.

YOU’RE FULL OF $HIT AND VERY IGNORANT Ms. H.

How about analysing the historical context when those movements sprang up?

How about the fact that both nations were totally destroyed by World War I, unemployment was very high and inflation was so high that people needed a wheel barrow to carry money to shop? How about the fact that people had no food to put on the table? How about the fact that in times of desperation people tend to follow populist leaders who promise the moon? How about the fact that both Mussolini and Hitler, after being appointed Prime Minister and Chancellor respectively, abolished elections and restored martial laws (without asking for the voters’ opinion, I might add).

It’s not that Italians and Germans were ready for dictatorship and asked for one. It was imposed upon them. And if you didn’t like it, you’d suffer very serious consequences.
Al-Fakh Yugoudh said

am February 2 2010 @ 9:43 pm

MARY H. “I wasn’t thinking about how the police were acting, I was thinking about how Raffaele would likely respond to authority figures under the circumstances.

Italy’s families are only two generations removed from the rule of Fascism.”"

OH PLEAASEE!

SINCE WHEN ITALIANS ARE AFRAID OF THEIR POLICE BECAUSE OF WHAT HAPPENED TO THEIR GREATGRANDFATHERS?

POLICE BRUTALITY IS MUCH MORE COMMON IN AMERICA THAN IN ITALY. ITALIAN POLICEMEN ARE REGULARLY BEATEN UP TO THE POINT THAT THEY REFUSE TO GO ON PATROL BY THEMSELVES. (IN FACT IN ITALY THERE ARE NO POLICE PATROLS WITH FEWER THAN 2 PEOPLE)

MAYBE YOU SHOULD TRAVEL OUTSIDE YOUR STINKING FOXHOLE AND SEE WHICH COUNTRY HAS THE HARSHEST POLICE BEHAVIOUR. YOU CLEARLY HAVE NEVER LIVED OUTSIDE OF YOUR FUNKY TOWN OF TUKWILA.
Mary H. said

am February 2 2010 @ 9:44 pm

“…would any of ye amanda haters here care to tell the rest of us which gives ye the most pleasure.amanda distress at being convicted of a crime she had nothing to do with,or is it deanna or edda distress that excites ye the most”

I LOVE you, billyryan.
Benito Mussolini said

am February 2 2010 @ 9:44 pm

“Mary H” is wrong. I am not responsible for Amanda’s conviction. I am dead.

(So is national authoritarianism in Italy.)
John Winters said

am February 2 2010 @ 9:46 pm

Fake-id said:

”IF I DON’T REMEMBER EXACTLY.
HOWEVER I KNOW FOR SURE I DIDN’T HEAR ANY BLACK MEN RAPING ANY OF MY FRIENDS IN MY HOUSE WHILE I WAS COVERING MY EARS.”

The instructions for the game clearly require the player to recall events in the past in decalarative statement form, that is, as statements of fact intended to relate what they believe truly happened in that past.

You have just quoted a statement made by Amanda Knox relating events of a past experience of hers. Unfortunately, this particular statement is composed by Amanda in the modal form and is thus unusable in this game. The reason for this, is that the modal form is employed by speakers/writers who intend to detrimentally modify the degree of certainty which their statements are intended to express.

The modal form is not used to discuss facts. If you need further help with this, please ask Billy Ryan, someone who regularly writes factually and will be able to help you improve your understanding of ‘mood’ in the English language.

Thank you.
Al-Fakh Yugoudh said

am February 2 2010 @ 9:54 pm

GAY wrote:
“Magini tried this before with the Monster of Florence case. Do you not find it sort of strange that this man is obsessed with satanic rituals..”

WHAT DO YOU KNOW ABOUT THE MONSTER OF FLORENCE CASE.

DO YOU KNOW THAT ONE OF THE SERIAL KILLERS (THERE WERE 3 CONVICTED) CONFESSED AND SAID THAT THERE WERE PEOPLE “UP HIGH” WHO PURCHASED THE BODY PARTS THEY WERE CUTTING UP WHEN THEY KILLED THE COUPLES TO USE IN RITUALS?”

HIS NAME WAS GIANCARLO LOTTI.

AND DO YOU KNOW THAT THE POLICE RECEIVED SEVERAL ANONYMOUS LETTERS INDICATING THAT THERE WAS A GROUP WHO WAS USING THE FEMALE VICTIMS’ BODY PARTS FOR RITUALS?

DO YOU THINK THAT MIGNINI CAME UP WITH THOSE STORIES ON HIS OWN?
Candy's Jowls Make Sick said

am February 2 2010 @ 9:56 pm

Gary said:

It’s also funny how Gueda’s sentence was reduced to 16 years which now makes the real killers sentence less than the wrongfully convicted ones.
————————————————-

Actually Gary, here’s what you missed in the press:

The initial sentences were comparable: Rudy got 30, Amanda 26 & Raffaele 25.

Rudy Guede got 30 years but, because he elected a “fast-track” trial by judge alone, rather than trial by jury (like his co-accused pals, Amanda & Raffaele), he became eligible for an automatic sentence reduction on his (automatic) appeal. 30 became 16.

Amanda & Raffaele will not be eligible for this ‘automatic’ reduction, they’ll have to ‘earn’ a reduction by winning their appeal on some ground or other. If they fail to do so, their sentences will stand at 26 & 25 years, respectively.

Looks like Rudy got better legal advice.
Al-Fakh Yugoudh said

am February 2 2010 @ 10:02 pm

Joint Sphincters wrote:

“The instructions for the game clearly require the player to recall events in the past in decalarative statement form, that is, as statements of fact intended to relate what they believe truly happened in that past.”

I WAS HAVING DINNER ON THURSDAY AT 9:00 PM. AND I CAN ALSO TELL YOU WHERE I WAS LAST NIGHT AND THE NIGHT BEFORE AND ALSO SATURDAY NIGHT. HOW ABOUT THAT?

AMANDA WAS ASKED WHAT SHE WAS DOING THE NIGHT BEFORE WHEN SHE WAS FIRST HEARD. SHE WASN’T ASKED A MONTH LATER.
Candy's Lisp said

am February 2 2010 @ 10:11 pm

Amanda told Edda she’d lied when she told the police that her boss, an innocent black man named Mr. Lumumba, helped her kill Meredith.

Despite the fact Edda was literally surrounded by bilingual consular officials, bilingual lawyers, and bilingual police officials, this is what she told the court when asked why she didn’t tell ANYONE:

“I don’t speak Italian.”

As a result, Mr. Lumumba, a completely innocent man, languished in prison for 2 more weeks while the police sorted it out and his wife and infant son lived in terror. He lost his business, his reputation, everything. He and his young family will forever by tainted by Amanda’s lie and Edda’s failure to act.

Edda’s damn lucky she didn’t do this on American soil. Otherwise, Mr. Lumumba would be able to tort her into the poor house.
Candy's Wattle said

am February 2 2010 @ 10:16 pm

Raffaele’s DNA is on that clasp.

46 days later, 46 years later, it’s all the same – the crime scene was sealed, and there is no statute of limitations on murder charges.
Candy's Nixon-Nose said

am February 2 2010 @ 10:21 pm

The defense was dragging its heels about setting a date to witness the bagging of the clasp by the police, hence the 46 day “delay” (and the defense team’s predictable/ lame attempt to cry about it at trial).

A sad ploy.

Kudos to the jury for seeing right through it.
Candy's Eye Bags said

am February 2 2010 @ 10:26 pm

Your only saving grace, Candy, is that you are not smart enough to spin a convincing lie.
Al-Fakh Yugoudh said

am February 2 2010 @ 10:26 pm

The Knoxes are all a despicable bunch.

They’re worse than the Anthony family (the parents of Casey Anthony). At least they didn’t send to jail someone totally innocent.

Blaming the “black man” is still a very popular sport in America.
Edda = Criminal said

am February 2 2010 @ 10:30 pm

Not telling anyone about what Amanda did to Lumumba was CRIMINAL.

Edda should be in jail for that.
Kim Bailey said

am February 3 2010 @ 1:50 am

“beaten by the Italian police…interrogate for 40 straight hours” I wonder if they are going to put Edda in the same cell with Amanda.
colonelhall said

am February 3 2010 @ 2:17 am

I’ve just wasted ten minutes of my life reading some of this trash!
Can I remember what I was doing at 9:00 pm on any day of the last week? Yes, easily. For some of those days, I’ll have to think hard. Let me see …. Thursday I was in the theatre watching a play. Not hard. Monday …… At home watching a movie. Simple!
Can I remember to the second, what I was watching? No. However, I do know that I was not in a completely different location, doing something else.

Gary, we have heard all of your arguments before, many times. They have been totally refuted. Nobody is going to take the time to go over them again. For instance:
“the footprints in blood only being visible using luminal is the craziest thing I have ever heard.” you thus explain that you have read nothing about the evidence, or understand nothing. Even CSI could put you straight on this!
jim said

am February 3 2010 @ 2:41 am

mary h, i dont who u are , u sound like her father;s pr machine. i mean the way u explain amanda’s 2 alibis and her boyfriend’s to convince that they did it out of pressure is unbelievably a sick joke. firstly, do u understand that there were other roomates living in that cottage, they were all interviewed, right by cops. so how come they didn’t change their alibis and contradict each other? how come any of other roomates didnt say yes i was not in the cottage and then change to yes i was there ,out of police pressure? how come none of them then blamed it on a black person out of police pressure?since u are basing her alibi changing due to police pressure, how come this doesnt apply to other roomates when they were questioned by cops? its obvious that only the liars were changing stories and then to get out of it blameit on someone else. i mean anyone who analyzes this will come to the conclusion since they had committed the crime thats why they were shaky with the cops and thats why they were lying and contradicting each other. thats why their alibis didnt fly by the cops . on the otherhand other roomates alibis flew by the cops becuz they were actually innocent. imean isn’t this logical to u. also that black guy she blamed was arrested but later released becuz whatever he stated to the cops was corroborated by the evidences too, forexample recipts and the customers at the bar said that he was actually working in his bar that nite. on the other hand her own boyfriend contradicted her and proved her a liar by saying that she maynot have spent the whole nite with him. also there were eywitness that nite who saw both amanda her boyfrind at nite after the murder looking at the cottage from the park. wht about that she was buying bleach 7 am even before the store opened? this was eyewitness account by the very shopownerwho saw her at the cleaning product section of the store. why wuld he lie about it, imean he is just a shopowner who gave this account in the court.meanwhile this contradicted her story that she was sleeping till 10 am or so proving her a liar again. so honestly all these facts prove only one thing that she changed her story because she is guilty thats why she had to make things up to cover her guilt. but what she forgot is that crime personnels arent stupid, thats what they are trained in to pick up suspects on the basis of their lies and contradiction. its becuz do u know any murderer who ever admitted his guilt ? a murderer is a compulsive liar to begin with thats why they have no conscience to kill someone. i used to be on her side too , but maybe u shuld read judge michele’s report instead of lying propaganda media of the world called the american medias, namely NBC and FOX, then u will realize that what a charming, sexy psycopath amanda is, a real cruel murderer. she even wrote a fiction in her diary about drugging and raping a girl as played by 2 brothers kyle and edgar. do u know any normal 20yr old who will write such sickening and strange thing in their diary! imean i am only taliking about few things, meanwhile there so many evidents that prove she did it. isnt circumstantial evidence a basis for proving a murder guilt? take example of oj simpson and scott peterson, both even to this day dont admit their guitl .so murderrs never admit, just like amand. she really deserves where she is along with that sick boyfriend who loved to keep knife in his pocket and was into have u read violent japanese fictions consisting of rap and murder!!! even he was in his own myspace with a meat cleaver and a bottle of bleach!. i mean anyone who is their side has actually the blood of victim on their hands, these 2 are the sickest, cruelest and charming psycopaths liars and murderrs. hope both of them rot in that hole for 26 yrs.
billyryan said

am February 3 2010 @ 3:20 am

the amanda haters hear have such knowledge of everything amanda said while been beaten by the police i am begining to think that mignini cut ye a copy of the interrogation tapes and posted them to ye before he destroyed the origionals.amanda knox did not destroy patrick mumumba the police did they knew well the amount of pressure they put amanda under before she, to use there own words “buckled”it would have been easy for the police to discreetly ask patrick where he was on the night of november 2 2007 and had he any witnesess to back up his claim.but the police new they had something they could use to destroy amandas life,they acted like a bull in a china shop arrested patrick went on tv to say they had merridith three murders in custody,in the worst case scenario amanda would now be facing defamanation charges from patrick destroy the interrogation tapes hope amanda would say she was hit while been interogated then they would also be able to bring charges of defamanation as well.a charge that would carry a two to six year in prison term.from that point on amanda knox chance of justice was decreasing by the day.the reason patrick mumumba lost his business is because the people of perugia stoped frequenting his bar mabey because they did not like how quickly he turned from accused to accuser.but the best laid plans of mice and men,everything that the police leaked to the press has been proved to be lies their ability to investigate a crime has has been shown to the world as the joke it is.the leader of the investigation and prosecution a now convicted criminal.having ratcheded up the media interest in this case they now find they cannot kill the media interest in this miscarriage of justice,they are now reduced to paying traiters,thirty pieces of silver men, to try and win the media war on the internet
Mary H. said

am February 3 2010 @ 3:24 am

jim, since you asked…

During the first four days after the murder, all of the roommates and all of their friends, including Amanda and Raffaele, were routinely and informally interviewed by the police. They all worked with the police, doing what they could to provide the police with the names of people Meredith knew, or who might have crossed paths with her.

None of the other young people who were interviewed was motivated to change his or her story because none of them was subjected to a formal interrogation where they were isolated and questioned through the night by a group of police officers. The reason none of them was subjected to a formal interrogation was because they were all out of town visiting their families the night of the murder.

Amanda and Raffaele were the most vulnerable to being lied about by a prosecutor desperately seeking to find suspects fast.

The bleach receipts were not mentioned as part of the prosecution’s case. The shop owner did not come forward about having seen Amanda until many months later, after he had seen her picture in the local newspapers dozens of times. Raffaele’s former cleaning woman also worked in the shop and she said she did not see Amanda there that morning.

Many murderers have admitted their guilt, especially one-time murderers. The Italian police and prosecutors have been working on Amanda and Raffaele for two years. Are they so bad at their jobs that they can’t break two inexperienced kids into admitting they committed murder?
John Winters said

am February 3 2010 @ 3:45 am

”WHAT DO YOU KNOW ABOUT THE MONSTER OF FLORENCE CASE.
DO YOU KNOW THAT ONE OF THE SERIAL KILLERS (THERE WERE 3 CONVICTED) CONFESSED AND SAID THAT THERE WERE PEOPLE “UP HIGH” WHO PURCHASED THE BODY PARTS THEY WERE CUTTING UP WHEN THEY KILLED THE COUPLES TO USE IN RITUALS?”
HIS NAME WAS GIANCARLO LOTTI.
AND DO YOU KNOW THAT THE POLICE RECEIVED SEVERAL ANONYMOUS LETTERS INDICATING THAT THERE WAS A GROUP WHO WAS USING THE FEMALE VICTIMS’ BODY PARTS FOR RITUALS?
DO YOU THINK THAT MIGNINI CAME UP WITH THOSE STORIES ON HIS OWN?”

Christ almighty!! What a country! Look I’ll concede that we may have been wrong about how much we understood about the MOF case but after this explanation, NEVER, NEVER EVER again claim that you come from a civilised, sovereign ”nation” for chrissake!!
John Winters said

am February 3 2010 @ 3:53 am

Al Fakyourcat said:

”I WAS HAVING DINNER ON THURSDAY AT 9:00 PM. AND I CAN ALSO TELL YOU WHERE I WAS LAST NIGHT AND THE NIGHT BEFORE AND ALSO SATURDAY NIGHT. HOW ABOUT THAT?”

Nobody’s contesting that these are declarative, factual statements. What we have a problem with, are the later statements she makes under obvious duress, where modal modifiers like ”could” are introduced to describe what ‘could’ have happened albeit that people who can’t even understand English resolutely fail to make that distinction on this blog.
Mary H. said

am February 3 2010 @ 4:01 am

Al Fakyourcat

LOL.
John Winters said

am February 3 2010 @ 4:08 am

colonelhall said:

”Can I remember what I was doing at 9:00 pm on any day of the last week? Yes, easily. For some of those days, I’ll have to think hard. Let me see …. Thursday I was in the theatre watching a play. Not hard. Monday …… At home watching a movie. Simple!
Can I remember to the second, what I was watching? No. However, I do know that I was not in a completely different location, doing something else.”

Yeah but you’re old. For that reason alone, your outlook on life even for the span of an evening, is completely different from that of two sexually active, exciting, energetic, young people. Their sheer dynamism separates them from people like you fundamentally. Their perspectives are not ordered like a diary (the theatre?!!); they are randomised and filled with the thrills which chance and opportunity promise to the young. Now let them out of prison you old fogie.
Mary H. said

am February 3 2010 @ 4:15 am

Oh, John, you said some nice things about Amanda and Raffaele. They’re gonna git you fer that.
John Winters said

am February 3 2010 @ 4:30 am

If you were the owner of a large company and were looking for someone competent and impressive to fill some important role or other that had just become vacant in your company, would you employ Mary H. or one of the people she so cleverly tackles on these blogs.

Case proven m’lud? If this case were tried on this blog, and Mary H. acted as the defense counsel, I think we know who the readership jury would side with.
Mary H. said

am February 3 2010 @ 4:53 am

Thank you, kind sir. Rather than disrupt the illusion , I want to reprint this important post from De Silva on the West Seattle Herald blog (where, by the way, someone has misused your name again, John):

De Silva wrote:

Two disturbing quotes from Italy

“We were able to establish guilt by closely observing the suspect’s psychological and behavioral reactions during the interrogations. We don’t need to rely on other kinds of investigation as this method has enabled us to get to the guilty parties”- Edgardo Giobbi, prosecutor of Amanda Knox.

===========================================

Another Example of Science in the Courtroom!!
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The judge needed to identify the person(s) responsible for changes to the crime scene. He went down the list of roommates and their lovers. Unable to identify anyone, he defaulted to Knox. FROM THE REPORT: Judge Micheli stated that, in his opinion, “this just left Knox who would seem to have an interest in arranging the scene the police would find”.

In a system where the presumption of innocence is important, Judge Micheli used “guilty because I can’t find any one else to blame” as the basis of his decision making. Moreover, based on this faulty logic, two people have spent over 800 days in a harsh, painful prison.

May there be a special place in God’s hell for this type of abuse of power.
Mary H. said

am February 3 2010 @ 4:55 am

And here is an excellent argument from Tony del Balzo, also from the West Seattle Herald blog:

“…But the last theory may work. That theory is the “just because” theory. As the assistant prosecutor stated in the trial (paraphrased) ‘Violence happens for no reason in this day and time’. This is hard to argue against until you look at the suspect’s history. Neither Knox nor Raffe have any violence in their history. The priest in the prison, who has come to know Knox in the two years she has waited for the trial to conclude, had vouched for her by saying that she is not the evil person that the court tried to portray.

However, if this “just because” theory is good enough to convict Knox of murder, it certainly should work in serving as a defense in the Knox slander case. That is to say, if you put enough policemen and women in a room with a suspect, eventually the police will beat the suspect. Why? Because ‘Violence happens for no reason in this day and time’, even to the police….”
Tehran 1979 said

am February 3 2010 @ 5:12 am

Mary H. said
am February 3 2010 @ 4:01 am

Al Fakyourcat

LOL.
——————————-

that’s nothing to laugh at, not when it comes from John “I was at the Embassy in ‘79″ Winters

he sounds like the sort that just might really be dangerous to cats
Tehran 1979 said

am February 3 2010 @ 5:19 am

Mary H with a Lisp, Wattle & Jowls said

“if you put enough policemen and women in a room with a suspect, eventually the police will beat the suspect”

————————————-

is this a law of the universe?

what happened to you?!

how does an ordinary, white, 60 year old, big -nosed, food-blogging woman from the pacific northwest wind up more afraid of the cops than rodney king is?!
Tehran 1979 said

am February 3 2010 @ 5:22 am

Big Jowls Mary H said:

“The priest in the prison, who has come to know Knox in the two years she has waited for the trial to conclude, had vouched for her by saying that she is not the evil person that the court tried to portray.”
————————–

Actually the priest said he didn’t think Amanda was in touch with reality.

He also added that he could NOT vouch for her behavior on the night of the murder, only for her behavior inside the prison.
Shane said

am February 3 2010 @ 5:24 am

“The defense was dragging its heels about setting a date to witness the bagging of the clasp by the police, hence the 46 day “delay” (and the defense team’s predictable/ lame attempt to cry about it at trial).”

Do you have a link for that? I’ve seen it quite a bit recently, but haven’t seen a source for it. What date exactly were the defence notified the bra clasp was being picked up?

(I’m assuming you’re not claiming they were also responsible for having left it at the crime scene in the first place…)
Shane said

am February 3 2010 @ 5:28 am

“Rafaelle first tried to claim they were at a party, but then he switched to Amanda’s story about being home and then said that was “a load of rubbish” and he’d been home and she’d been out between 9pm and 1am.”

I was reading Sollecito’s letters and prison diary the other day, and the funny thing is, in there he says the “load of rubbish” is the idea that Amanda left that night. In fact, he says that it’s “very likely” she was with him all night.

Does he also say the idea that she was with him all night is a “load of rubbish”? (Genuine question, I only know what I’ve read in the diaries/letters, which seems to be that it’s his statement that she left which is ‘a load of rubbish’).
Tehran 1979 said

am February 3 2010 @ 5:44 am

Eye Bags Mary H said:

“Unable to identify anyone, he defaulted to Knox. FROM THE REPORT: Judge Micheli stated that, in his opinion, “this just left Knox who would seem to have an interest in arranging the scene the police would find”
————————

c’mon, Candace

that’s your WORST spin yet

ALL of the other roommates had alibis that checked out

they were ALL verified as being out of town at the time of the murder

the ONLY reason to stage the break in was to deflect blame away from the residents of the cottage

Amanda was the only resident of the cottage in Perugia at the time of the murder

ergo Amanda staged the break in

get it?
Ask Yourself This... said

am February 3 2010 @ 6:04 am

Amanda had only known Raffaele for 6 days.

They spent most of that time at his apartment.

As a result, Raffaele barely knew Amanda’s roommate, Meredith (only “glimpsed her twice”, according to Raffaele’s sister).

Yet, after the murder, when the cops asked Raffaele how Meredith’s DNA wound up on the blade of a knife in his home, he said:

“I accidentally pricked Meredith while cooking dinner for her.”

But Meredith had never set foot in his home. He barely knew her. He had never cooked dinner for her or “pricked” her accidentally with that knife.

Nevertheless, Raffaele REPEATED this lie, in writing, after he retained counsel.

Now WHY would he tell this lie if he were innocent??????????????????????????
Tom Rochelle said

am February 3 2010 @ 6:21 am

I’ve actually become fascinated by all the twisted
logic and scenarios that show a great discomfort
with the truth of her innocence. Clearly, some
have made a substantial emotional investment in
the belief that Amanda is guilty.
It was a physical impossibility to participate
in this horrible crime without leaving substantial
DNA evidence in the room where the crime took place.
That’s why Rudy Guede’s forensic evidence is all
over the room. After all, HE did the crime.
Now, find one piece of irrefutable evidence that Amanda
and Raffaele were in the room when the murder took place.
Just ONE piece of IRREFUTABLE evidence that they were
there. Like a bloody thumb print. You can’t because
they weren’t there. Every piece of evidence that was
offered by the prosecution was demolished by the defense.
That’s important because Amanda lived at the residence
and Raffaele had visited several times. One needs to
establish their presence in the room when the murder took place because she lived at the residence and he visited.
They are both innocent. I know that the truth of that
hurts some of you. You want to believe what Amanda wanted to believe: that an innocent person doesn’t get convicted of a crime that they didn’t commit. Very sadly it happens.

There can be 10,000 or 100,000 or even 1,000,000 pages of evidence about the crime, it’s the interpretation of the RELEVANT evidence that matters.

They weren’t in the room when the murder took place.

If they were, the relevant evidence would show that.

It doesn’t. End of story.
Gary said

am February 3 2010 @ 6:53 am

Al-Fakh Yugoudh said
The Knoxes are all a despicable bunch.
They’re worse than the Anthony family (the parents of Casey Anthony). At least they didn’t send to jail someone totally innocent.

Tell me you’re joking? If you’re not then you have serious problems. First of all Amanda was basically tortured into making that claim after 14 hours of interrogation. The Anthony family may have not sent an innocent person to jail, but they sure the heck are trying there hardest to do so (Zanida, Kronk). In fact they are not only trying to send an innocent person to prison, but they are trying to put them to death by lethal injection. What you just said is the most outrageous thing I have ever heard.
PhanuelB said

am February 3 2010 @ 8:40 am

@WaitaMinute:”Just because you cannot read, write or speak Italian does not mean the documents are “unavailable.”

Then let’s see one. In Italian is no problem. Unaltered, in it’s entirety and anything that makes it here goes on the internet without limitation. The problem is that they can’t be published to where people can see them and use them. What in the world would be the reason for a law like that except to protect a corrupt judicial system?

@WaitaMinute:”As for “full unedited recordings of…interrogation[s,]” do you think these are readily available in American cases?”

Yes

@WaitaMinute:”For example, can I listen in on the “full unedited recordings” of the interrogations of every prisoner at Gitmo?”

No. First of all interrogations there relate to national security. If the world knew what the subject was saying it might jeopardize the lives of American, British, and Italian soldiers… and others. Documents legitimately sealed by a court should not be in the public domain either. This might include material that compromises the privacy or safety of victims, witnesses, minors,or investigators.
Shane said

am February 3 2010 @ 9:23 am

“Now WHY would he tell this lie if he were innocent??????????????????????????”

Perhaps to explain the lie that the police had told him about DNA on the knife blade, and which he didn’t have the scientific knowledge to refute?

If you lie to suspects, you can’t really complain if you get lies back. See also: the police telling Amanda they had hard evidence she was at the crime scene, the police telling Raffaele they had hard evidence he called the police after the postal police arrived.
sarah clinton said

am February 3 2010 @ 9:48 am

someone removed my post ! – I only said…… ‘knox in a box ‘lighten up !
may day said

am February 3 2010 @ 9:49 am

knox in a box
PhanuelB said

am February 3 2010 @ 10:41 am

@Char:”PhanuelB, my goodness you are tiresome. “People who don’t speak the language of the trial and who weren’t there have every right to come in and inspect the quality of justice.”

@Char:”Wrong. You have no “right” to inspect anything with regard to the justice system in a foreign, sovereign nation.”

Truly extraordinary statements. Public access to trial records is a fundamental principal of any democracy.

See the case of Carlo Parlanti, an Italian in jail in California who many Italians feel is innocent. Trial documents from his case are available online from the link below.

http://www.thepeoplevscarloparlanti.com/atti/indiex%20from%20defence.htm
Mary H. said

am February 3 2010 @ 11:21 am

Tehran1979, the two posts you’re railing about were written by other people, not me. I quoted them, as noted. No wonder you don’t know the facts of the case — you don’t read carefully.

And sorry, but for the trillionth time, I am not Candace Dempsey. I wish I were — I’d be coming into some hard-earned cash very soon.
saywhat? said

am February 3 2010 @ 11:44 am

Let’s not argue with Maryville or MaryH – they survive under the mantra “Ignorance is bliss” and tacky, and insipid, and moronic, assinine…oh I could go on and on
elizabeth said

am February 3 2010 @ 11:56 am

Mary ,I believe Tehran ‘79 referring to you as ‘candace’ was probably sarcasm !?! ,its a similar situation in respect to your understanding of irony- some of you ‘folks’ just don’t get it.
Mary H. said

am February 3 2010 @ 12:17 pm

Are you sure about that, elizabeth? Did YOU read carefully?

I get accused of being Candace almost every day. I have yet to hear it from anyone intending it ironically.
Shane said

am February 3 2010 @ 12:19 pm

“Mary ,I believe Tehran ‘79 referring to you as ‘candace’ was probably sarcasm !?! ,its a similar situation in respect to your understanding of irony- some of you ‘folks’ just don’t get it.”

I doubt it… Anyone who posts in support of Knox/Sollecito’s innocence gets accused of being FOA/a paid PR commenter/Candace Dempsey. The pro-guilty crowd are victims of a bizarre paranoia, amongst other things.
Al-Fakh Yugoudh said

am February 3 2010 @ 12:24 pm

Gay wrote: “First of all Amanda was basically tortured into making that claim after 14 hours of interrogation.”

WRONG! TWICE!

Amanda wasn’t interrogated for 14 hours.

Raffaele was called by the police while they were in a pizzeria for dinner. They would have liked to talk to him.

He went to the police station after 10:30 pm. Amanda decided to accompany him.

During Raffaele’s interview with the police, after he was confronted with some inconsistencies in his previous statements he confessed that what he had told the police previously was “un sacco di cazzate”, which for all of you who don’t speak a word of Italian means a “sac of bull$hit” (UN= a, SACCO= sac, DI=of, CAZZATE= a vulgar expression meaning b.s., or more literally, ‘dick’s words or acts – from the word ‘cazzo’=dick, which is not a body part designed to say logical things or do logical things) . He then proceeded to tell them that Amanda left his apartment sometime between 8:30 and 9pm, and he wasn’t sure if she came back after he went to bed at 1:00 am.
Amanda, who happened to be outside in the hall, was then asked if she wanted to try and see if she could remember some facts that weren’t clear from her first statements. She agreed. It was past 11 pm by that time. When she repeated the story that she was at Raffaele’s all evening, she was then confronted with the fact that Raffaele had just told them that she left the apartment sometime in the eve. to meet some people at the pub (that’s what Raffaele told them). She was therefore confronted about the message: CI VEDIAMO PIU’ TARDI she had in the cell phone. That phrase means literally “we will see each other later on”, but unlike the English counterpart “see you later”, which could mean Good bye, in Italian that phrase means that “we are for sure meeting later on that same evening”. Obviously the police put the two things together:
1-Raffaele said she left to meet people before 9pm
2-She sent a SMS saying “we are going to meet later”.
And at that point they wanted to know whom she met, because at that point the police thought she was covering somebody (nobody would think that she was a murderer, because generally those types of crimes are committed by men).
Pressured to tell whom she met, she eventually made the statement about her presence in the house with Lumumba at 01:45 am, just over 2 hours after the beginning of the interrogation (not 14).
At that point she became a suspect (as possible accomplice) and the interrogation had to be stopped, and they had to call a magistrate.

If you listened to the 2 days of testimony given by Amanda (that was available on the net Mr. PhalluselB), she didn’t say that she was tortured, she said she was given to cuffs on the nape but she wasn’t hurt by that at all, she just said that she was frightened. Learn the language and listen to what she says. Unfortunately you don’t know the language, and that’s why to serve in a jury in America you must understand English.
Al-Fakh Yugoudh said

am February 3 2010 @ 12:36 pm

Joint Sphincters wrote:
“modal modifiers like ”could” are introduced to describe what ‘could’ have happened albeit that people who can’t even understand English resolutely fail to make that distinction on this blog.”

I and probably everybody in this blog knows English more than adequately to understand the meaining of modal modifiers like ‘could’.

Amanda didn’t make a statement using the conditional mode ‘could’, as in: “somebody could have been there killing her while I was at Raffaele”. Instead she put herself in the crime scene, using the ‘indicative’ mode, which she also used to indicate what she did when she heard the scream (I covered my ears).
Al-Fakh Yugoudh said

am February 3 2010 @ 12:39 pm

We get it, Mary Ho, you’re not Candiced Dumpsay. You’re just one of her honchos, maybe Turtle Dove or Sept79, who write the same ‘cazzate’ on her blog.
Mary H. said

am February 3 2010 @ 12:39 pm

Speaking of “un sacco di cazzate,” Al-Fakh-Only Mizzelph, your last post fits the bill.

Asking Amanda to come in for a chat at 11:00 p.m. on a school night? A little heavy-handed for a non-suspect, isn’t it? Why not hold off until the next afternoon, and let Amanda know she could bring a lawyer with her?

Then running out in the middle of the night to drag Patrick out of bed and into jail without due process? You make it sound like the cops were just calm and unsuspecting until Raffaele broke the case wide open. The cops’ behavior says otherwise.

Raffaele told the cops he hadn’t thought of “the inconsistencies” between his and Amanda’s alibis until the cops kindly informed him of them. Maybe that’s because there weren’t any.

By the way, Raffaele testified that he told the cops he did not want to be interrogated. He said they isolated him and took his shoes, and of course, did not allow him to consult a lawyer.
grim said

am February 3 2010 @ 12:47 pm

Tell Me Mary H.

After they are both found guilty on appeal. What are you going to do with your life then? Yours must be pretty miserable existence and the classic case of ‘get a life.’ It’s rather sad really, personally I pity you.
Mary H. said

am February 3 2010 @ 12:53 pm

Shucks, grim, I’m touched. Hey, while you’re in the mood to extend sympathy to those who actually do spend all their time focused on this case, hop on over to truejustice. Those guys really DON’T have jobs — they don’t need them — and they really DON’T have anything else to think about other than how to stick it to Amanda and Raffaele. Ah, a noble mission.

THERE”S a full-time PR campaign for you, and one that is self-supporting — no fundraisers necessary. How DO they do it?
elizabeth said

am February 3 2010 @ 12:55 pm

mary h ?,it’s you that should read more carefully, I stated that it was probably SARCASM Terhan labeling you candace , not IRONY. Capito ?
grim said

am February 3 2010 @ 12:59 pm

Mary H

Lets See my last post said 12:47, that’s two hours back from the East Coast. Therefore Mary H it’s obvious that you must stay up really late doing your inventing of possible maybes in this case. So sorry, tell me have you washed lately? Just bet you are single, miserable and fat. bad combination all round. Also did welfare buy you a computer so you would just go away?
Mary H. said

am February 3 2010 @ 12:59 pm

Right you are, elizabeth. My mistake.
Mary H. said

am February 3 2010 @ 1:03 pm

You sound really deep, grim; I want to get to know you.

The hours other people keep seems to be a common target for the anti-Amanda bigots. You guys will criticize ANYTHING!
grim said

am February 3 2010 @ 1:04 pm

Your right Mary your touched yes, But in the head
grim said

am February 3 2010 @ 1:15 pm

Right again Mary.
Sooo you want to get to know me eh? OK give me your full name and address and I’ll come round.
We can have coffee and solve the worlds problems.
elizabeth said

am February 3 2010 @ 1:17 pm

MaryH , glad we cleared that up , apologies for momentarily distracting you from your mission – proclaiming that freaks innocence……. good luck !
Mary H. said

am February 3 2010 @ 1:24 pm

grim, can you believe I don’t drink coffee? I may be in one of Seattle’s smallest minorities.

Thanks for the good wishes, elizabeth. Say, when I told grim I thought he was deep and I wanted to get to know him, was that sarcasm or irony? Both, or not?

*****

Now where did Hi’l-Fakh-Only Izzelf go? I wanted to talk about the alibis some more. I never get tired of talking about those ever-relevant alibis.

Darn it — now, which was that? Irony or sarcasm?
Al-Fakh Yugoudh said

am February 3 2010 @ 1:29 pm

Mary H. (Homey):
I wonder why the police zeroed in on the two love doves. I also wonder why they decided to tap their phones right after the murder.

Could it be they figured out they weren’t telling the whole truth from the start?

I don’t see why you should be so surprised that two coke heads under the influence of drugs were involved in some orgy attempt with a much more proper English girl.

I don’t find it surprising at all. The newspapers around the world are full of stories like that.

What’s surprising to me, is that there are people who defend a murderer simply because:

A- She’s an American abroad.
B- She killed a foreigner (we know the value that Americans put on foreign people lives, just ask the Afghanis or the Iraqis).
C- There is a black person you can put the blame on.

The interesting thing is that if Amanda Knox had been a British or Italian woman (or worse a black foreigner), and Meredith Kercher had been American, the very same people, with exactly the same circumstances and evidence, would now be asking for the head of Amanda Knox.

We’ve seen that with the incident of that woman disappeared in Aruba (Natalee Holloway), where, in spite of the very scant knowledge of the circumstances and the lack of evidence, all Americans wanted the head of that Dutch Aruban guy.
Kim Bailey said

am February 3 2010 @ 1:31 pm

billyryan said “knowledge of everything amanda said while been beaten by the police i am begining to think that
mignini cut ye a copy of the interrogation tapes.” It was not Mignini who said that she was beaten by the Italian police it was Knox and her parents.

Mary H., “none of them was subjected to a formal interrogation where they were isolated and questioned through the night.” Since you were there why don’t you tell us who it was that beat Knox.

Mary H., “Are they so bad at their jobs that they can’t break two inexperienced kids into admitting they committed murder?” Using that premise Guede is innocent too, he still maintains that he did not kill Meredith. The police should release all 3, nobody murdered Meredith.

Mary H., earlier you mentioned some nonsense about people getting their information from JFM (paraphrase) and then you come up with Judge Micheli used “‘guilty because I can’t find any one else to blame’ as the basis of his decision making.” JFM is starting to look like an excellent source when compared to your source – someone’s own rear-end.
colonelhall said

am February 3 2010 @ 1:38 pm

You’re getting out of control, folks! Just because you disagree with someone, there is no need to be abusive. Some of you need to calm dow.

As for the case, I notice that Mry says “Asking Amanda to come in for a chat at 11:00 p.m. on a school night? A little heavy-handed for a non-suspect, isn’t it? ”

If you are talking about the night of the gym session at the police station, wasn’t it established that it was Rafael that had been asked to come in. Amanda Knox just accompanied him. on that night.
PhanuelB said

am February 3 2010 @ 1:43 pm

Al-Fakh Yugoudh:

Please provide a source for your 12:24 post. Were you there?
Mary H. said

am February 3 2010 @ 1:44 pm

For cripe’s sake, Kim, I didn’t write that, I quoted someone else who did. How many times am I going to have to correct people about that today?

Not that I disagree with what the guy wrote.

It’s not JFM, it’s tjmk. Yikes. And for the love of all that is good and holy, go back and reread the first paragraph of your post, in which you address billyryan. You weren’t the one who said she was in the top 3% of her class, were you?

By the way, how are things going with the mop and bucket mystery?
Mary H. said

am February 3 2010 @ 1:49 pm

“I wonder why the police zeroed in on the two love doves.”

Because they were the only two people who were close to Meredith who weren’t out of town that night. And because it made Mignini mad when he saw them kissing on the news.

“I also wonder why they decided to tap their phones right after the murder.”

Because Mignini is a corrupt, law-breaking control freak who sticks his nose where it doesn’t belong.

“Could it be they figured out they weren’t telling the whole truth from the start?”

No. They needed some suspects.

“I don’t see why you should be so surprised that two coke heads..”

They weren’t using coke; they were smoking pot.
Mary H. said

am February 3 2010 @ 1:52 pm

colonel, I was responding to what A-F-Y wrote: “Amanda, who happened to be outside in the hall, was then asked if she wanted to try and see if she could remember some facts that weren’t clear from her first statements. She agreed. It was past 11 pm by that time.”
billyryan said

am February 3 2010 @ 1:56 pm

ye are all so good at picking holes in everything amanda and raffaela said under interogation ye only have the police word for what they said.amanda told the police the book she was reading at raffaela apartment.the police gave in evidence at one of the early hearings that the book was found at the cottage where merridith was killed and this was proof amanda was at the cottage during the murder,only to be caught out lying by there own video when they were caught out it was a mistake not deliberate lies by the police.the postal police officer who broke down the door of merridiths bedroom said in evidence that he just looked into the bedroom and did not enter,one of the girls who lived in the house and her boyfriend standing behind him said in evidence he entered the room and lifted the cover off the body and they identified merridith.again the police officer caught out lying.the postal police which became important claimed to have arrived at the cottage before raffaela rang the police.if he did he arrived before he got the call from headquarters to go to the cottage again the police caught out lying.and yet every selective leak from the interrogation is a cast iron fact, i think the perugian police would not reconise the truth if it jumped up and bit them on the neck
Kim Bailey said

am February 3 2010 @ 2:08 pm

I can’t read any more of these childish personal attacks that have nothing to do with the case. You all on both sides need to grow up.
Mary H. said

am February 3 2010 @ 2:11 pm

Before you go, Kim, what about the mop and bucket?
Kim Bailey said

am February 3 2010 @ 2:28 pm

Mary H. I realize that you were quoting someone else. I am telling you that your source is useless.

Maybe I did use the wrong name for JFM that is because I have never once been to it. Further proving my point.

I don’t need to reread my statement to billyryan I wrote. You are the one confused.

That link you provided was not a “police deposition” It was a reporter’s account. As I stated above your source is no better than JFM or TJFM (whatever).

The only time I came 2nd in my class is the odd occasion that I did not come 1st. But that is not relevant to this case.
Al-Fakh Yugoudh said

am February 3 2010 @ 2:56 pm

Mary Ho. said

Because they were the only two people who were close to Meredith who weren’t out of town that night. And because it made Mignini mad when he saw them kissing on the news.

FILOMENA ROMANELLI WAS ALSO IN PERUGIA THAT NIGHT, STAYING AT HER BOYFRIEND’S. THERE WERE NO INCONSISTENCIES IN HER STATEMENTS, AND SHE WAS NEVER ARRESTED.

I’M SURE SHE WAS ALSO KISSING HER BOYFRIEND. YOUR SPECULATION ABOUT MIGNINI IS JUST THAT: SILLY SPECULATION BASED ON NOTHING.

Because Mignini is a corrupt, law-breaking control freak who sticks his nose where it doesn’t belong.

DO YOU KNOW THE MEANING OF THE WORD CORRUPT? MAYBE HE’S A ZEALOUS MAGISTRATE, BUT NOT CORRUPT.

No. They needed some suspects.

NO THEY NEEDED SOME COOPERATION FROM THE FRIENDS OF THE VICTIM TO TRY TO CATCH THE CULPRIT. THEY GOT A BUNCH OF LIES INSTEAD, WHICH OF COURSE MADE THEM SUSPICIOUS. HAVE YOU HEARD OF CASEY ANTHONY’S CASE?

They weren’t using coke; they were smoking pot.

THAT’S WHAT THEY SAID. BUT LIARS ARE NOT NECESSARILY TO BE BELIEVED.
Al-Fakh Yugoudh said

am February 3 2010 @ 3:02 pm

PhallusB says:
“Please provide a source for your 12:24 post. Were you there?”

No I wasn’t there, but I have the original Sentence Motivation document relative to the disposition of cautionary detainment given by the GIP. It’s in Italian, written in very technical legalese language, and it’s saved in my hard drive. I just gave you a quick recount of what’s in it. I don’t remember where I found it. Probably some Italian media site.
Al-Fakh Yugoudh said

am February 3 2010 @ 3:03 pm

cont’d to PhallicB.

Some of it was from Italian media accounts too.
Al-Fakh Yugoudh said

am February 3 2010 @ 3:07 pm

Mary H.
“By the way, Raffaele testified that he told the cops he did not want to be interrogated. He said they isolated him and took his shoes, and of course, did not allow him to consult a lawyer.”

I HEARD THAT IT HAPPENED TO SEVERAL SUSPECTS IN GUANTANAMO BAY AS WELL.

THE ONLY DIFFERENCE RAFFAELE WASN’T WATERBOARDED. ITALY USES LESS INVASIVE METHODS THAN IN THE US.
Al-Fakh Yugoudh said

am February 3 2010 @ 3:15 pm

Mary Ho: “Raffaele told the cops he hadn’t thought of “the inconsistencies” between his and Amanda’s alibis until the cops kindly informed him of them. Maybe that’s because there weren’t any.”

Have you thought that maybe the police by then had discovered that:
- His father had called him at 20:42 and not after 23:00 as he first declared.
- His ISP couldn’t confirm internet navigation from 11:00 pm to 01:00 am.
- His call to 112 on the morning of Nov. 2 was after the police had already arrived at the scene.
- His initial deposition was not matching Amanda’s about their whereabouts on Nov. 1.
- And maybe, that some depositions by Filomena Romanelli were in conflict with his.

Maybe there was some good reason for the police to be puzzled by those inconsistencies. Don’t you think?
Jeanette said

am February 3 2010 @ 3:16 pm

“THE ONLY DIFFERENCE RAFFAELE WASN’T WATERBOARDED. ITALY USES LESS INVASIVE METHODS THAN IN THE US.”

Yeah, like hitting, oh right, “cuffing” women on the back of the head.

I’m American, I didn’t vote for Bush, I did vote for the other guy. I don’t like waterboarding and I don’t like anyone being hit on the back of the head. They are both wrong and, as I’m sure your mum told you, two wrongs don’t make a right. And, that “less invasive” argument is utterly ridicules.
Al-Fakh Yugoudh said

am February 3 2010 @ 3:35 pm

Jeanette:
“Yeah, like hitting, oh right, “cuffing” women on the back of the head.”

That is what Amanda said. But is it true??

Lots of prisoners accuse the police of mistreatment. But is it true they were mistreated?

You assume that whatever Amanda says is the truth, nothing but the truth, except for when she incriminates herself. Then she’s not telling the truth.

WATERBOARDING WAS AMPLY PROVEN AND CORROBORATED BY TESTIMONIES AND EVIDENCE.

AMANDA’S ALLEGATIONS WERE NOT! AS A MATTER OF FACT SHE COULDN’T EVEN RECOGNIZE THE POLICEWOMAN WHO ALLEGEDLY DID IT.

AND BY THE WAY. THE INCIDENTS OF POLICE BRUTALITY IN AMERICA ARE FAR MORE COMMON THEY’LL EVER BE IN ITALY. JUST GOOGLE: POLICE BRUTALITY IN USA, AND YOU’LL SEE HOW MANY HITS.
Calling "PhanuelD Student's" Bluff said

am February 3 2010 @ 4:00 pm

@WaitaMinute:”As for “full unedited recordings of…interrogation[s,]” do you think these are readily available in American cases?”

Yes
———————————–

okay, let’s put that to the test with a few well known suspects

show me the police interrogation recordings, full and unedited, of:

O J Simpson
Michael Jackson
Timothy McVeigh
Lee Harvey Oswald

remember, to fit your standards, it has to be readily available to non-English speaking foreigners & free

(good luck)
Jeanette said

am February 3 2010 @ 4:11 pm

“AMANDA’S ALLEGATIONS WERE NOT! AS A MATTER OF FACT SHE COULDN’T EVEN RECOGNIZE THE POLICEWOMAN WHO ALLEGEDLY DID IT.”

Neither have I seen or heard any proof that Amanda wasn’t hit.

You know, many police departments in America have learned, usually the hard way, that audio or video tapes of any interrogation need to be made. In some states/cities it is even the law. Then there is no he said/she said arguments. Maybe this case will be a wake up call for Italy.
Candy's Lisp said

am February 3 2010 @ 4:31 pm

Mary H. said
am February 3 2010 @ 11:21 am

And sorry, but for the trillionth time, I am not Candace Dempsey. I wish I were — I’d be coming into some hard-earned cash very soon.
______________________________________________

Candy, you give yourself away so easily.

As for hard-earned cash, I’ll bet your book advance was a paltry sum.

Something on the order of $4000 or so. Face facts:

You’ve NEVER written a book before (despite the fact you’re 60 years old);

You have no legitimate press credentials – you are an amateur BLOGGER;

Your grammar is scarcely better than that of Amanda; &

You are not writing a balanced book, you’re righting a one-sided propaganda piece for Amanda and her family.

After Curt, Edda, Chris and your sister buy a copy, your sales will halt.

People interested in this case (and unrelated to Amanda) want to hear a balanced account, not poorly contrived spin.

The day that you make decent money from sales of the dreadfully disingenuous pro-Amanda tripe that you spew on your blog, well…that’s the day I’m an astronaut.

The book, if it ever comes out, will go straight to the ‘discount bin’ for a brief respite before heading to the pulp mill for recycling.

Was it worth re-traumatizing Meredith’s family and undermining justice for them just so you could squeeze out a $4000 advance?

Your publisher wouldn’t have touched an aging, never-was like you if it weren’t for your ACCESS to Amanda’s mom and the case file she holds.

In a way I feel sorry for you: You had to sell your soul to devil (Edda) to get a book published before you die, and now you can’t give the OTHER side of the story even if you wanted to.
Jeanette said

am February 3 2010 @ 4:31 pm

Just curious and wondering if Amanda’s new attorney will bring up the “rush to judgement” defense that seems to hold up so well in US courts. I usually scoff at such defense tactics but after reading about this case I’ve become a believer. It can and does happen. Certainly there’s no denying that the police/prosecution did an all out galloping run to judgement in this case. There’s even tapped quotes from those involve to prove it.
ALL ABOUT CANDACE said

am February 3 2010 @ 4:54 pm

FOUND THIS POSTED ON ANOTHER SITE:

Candace Dempsey had the habit of posting to her own blog under different aliases and she was caught out commenting positively on her own post using different aliases.

She got caught one day (a PDF capture has been taken), forgetting to log out as Candace Dempsey and signed the post with a complete different name.

In that post she congratulated the original poster (herself, Candace Dempsey) on writing such a refreshing and sensible post.

I have the same level of respect for Candace Dempsey as I have for the murderess and her family.

Deal with it.
Gman said

am February 3 2010 @ 5:02 pm

Jeanette, you’re not too smart, are you?

“Neither have I seen or heard any proof that Amanda wasn’t hit.”

I guess there’s no proof you haven’t hit me either, is there?

Here’s a little life lesson for you: The onus is on the accuser to prove that an incident DID occur. Surely you should have learnt *something* from this case.
IVSTITIA said

am February 3 2010 @ 5:34 pm

Jeanette: “Neither have I seen or heard any proof that Amanda wasn’t hit”.

According to the rules of evidence the burder of proof is on those who make a charge, not those who receive it. In addition the rules of evidence require that you prove a positive statement not a negative one.

Otherwise I can accuse you, Jeanette, to steal money and then say:
“Neither have I seen or heard any proof that Jeanette is not a thief”.

Also, the prosecutor cannot start any investigation of the police behaviour until Amanda actually files a lawsuit against the police for that mistreatment. That type of crime does not start ex officio, as it would be for murder. Amanda must file a lawsuit first.

_____________

“Just curious and wondering if Amanda’s new attorney will bring up…”
________________
Amanda has no new attorney. The same attorneys will be arguing the case for her in appeal (unless Amanda will decide to retain someone else).

The attorney from Philadelphia they hired is not allowed to argue the case in an Italian court, in addition he doesn’t know Italian law and penal procedure, and he doesn’t even speak the language. His primary role will be that of advisor and liaison between the Italian lawyers and the family (and the US press). He will have primarily a Public Relations role, rather than a legal one.
Al-Fakh Yugoudh said

am February 3 2010 @ 5:44 pm

Jeanette said:
“Neither have I seen or heard any proof that Amanda wasn’t hit”.

I say:

Neither have I seen or heard any proof that Jeanette isn’t a mentally retarded idiot.

As a matter of fact her last post is sufficient proof she is.
PhanuelB said

am February 3 2010 @ 5:44 pm

@Calling “PhanuelD Student’s” Bluff:
“show me the police interrogation recordings, full and unedited, of:

O J Simpson
Michael Jackson
Timothy McVeigh
Lee Harvey Oswald”

All of the above cases pre-date the development of the pdf format so one would have to go to the courthouse and get paper copies. That is still the only way to do it with most state courts. I will NOT be going to a courthouse in California or Texas to prove a point. That point has been sufficiently proven with the links to the Carlo Parlanti case.

If it’s part of the trial record and non-sealed, you or I or anyone else can go to the courthouse, pay $1 per page and get it. Period. And once we have it we can put it on the internet without limitation.
Any and all records of interrogations in the US are fully discoverable by the defense. Period. If an interrogation occurred and neither side wanted it in the record it might not be available to the public.

The defense in Amanda’s case has requested such electronic records of her interrogations.

Any interrogation of Michael Jackson would presumably be sealed because it involved minors.

From the PACER System:
5:95-cr-00110-RPM USA v. McVeigh
Date filed: 08/10/1995
Date terminated: 02/20/1996
Date of last filing: 02/23/1996
983 Documents. Many sealed. None in PDF format. All non sealed documents available at courthouse or by mail.
Al-Fakh Yugoudh said

am February 3 2010 @ 6:04 pm

PhallusB:

Why don’t you want to go to Perugia and make the photocopies yourself?

If it’s true (and I don’t know since you’re saying it but who would believe you?) that Italian law doesn’t allow for those records to be put on the net, what do care? You’re not within the jurisdiction of Italian law if you come back to the US? Just come back with the photocopies, scan them and put them on your own website. If the Italian authorities don’t like it, too bad. They can tell the ISP’s in Italy to scramble or make your website unavailable, but they are not going to do anything to you in the US!

Why do you expect that the Italian authorities should put those records on the net for you?

Are you boycotting travel to Italy? Or you simply have no money to go?
Al-Fakh Yugoudh said

am February 3 2010 @ 6:12 pm

And by the way, the poor Patrick Lumumba got bad news today in Italy.

He appealed his paltry 8,000 Euros damages award by the State for his wrong conviction (he was asking for 516,000 Euros).

But the Supreme Court confirmed the original settlement amount of 8,000 Euros from the State. And of course he won’t get any of the damages from Amanda, since she’s got nothing.

Poor chap! He even went out of business and had to close his pub when he was arrested and had to defend himself. Giving that job to Amanda wasn’t certainly a good investment for him. She’s bad news for anybody who meets her.
billyryan said

am February 3 2010 @ 6:16 pm

al_fak_yugoudh any chance you would tell us the real reason you want an innocent young girl in jail.stop repeating the now mostly discredited lies of the convicted criminal mignini.who is paying you,are you mignini. mabey his wife his eldest daughter.mabey his eldery mother. i have a suspission you are a jew maskerading as an arab.you once asked edda out,she told you her standers were a lot higher than a slimeball like you.you were convicted in the wrong yourself and you are looking for revenge,you asked deanna for a date and she rang the police and said you were hasling her.there is something i cant quite figure out in relation to you
Hector said

am February 3 2010 @ 6:31 pm

http://amandadefensefund.org/

Obviously A LOT of people think Amanda’s innocent, otherwise you wouldn’t see Al-Fakh posting as 8 different people to show otherwise. How loserish.
Mary H. said

am February 3 2010 @ 6:47 pm

ALL ABOUT CANDACE, you forgot the part where I asked the writer to provide the PDF capture, and she evaporated into thin air, never to be heard from again.

Typical truejustice M.O. — Accuse someone of something but provide no documentation. Or supply half the information that is available, and pretend it is the whole story.
Mary H. said

am February 3 2010 @ 7:01 pm

Gman and Ivstitia, you certainly are giving jeannette a hard time for saying, “Neither have I seen or heard any proof that Amanda wasn’t hit.”

Odd, considering about 95% of the people who believe Amanda is guilty are using exactly the same reasoning. Just yesterday, Chuk wrote: “I can’t see anything substantial to make me believe that she hadn’t some part in the events.”

I didn’t see you ridiculing his logic.
Mary H. said

am February 3 2010 @ 7:06 pm

Kim, you don’t have to use my source to do some research on the mop and bucket. As I suggested earlier, though, it is apparent you are happier with your beliefs about the case that with the facts.
Al-Fakh Yugoudh said

am February 3 2010 @ 7:16 pm

billyryan said: “..blah..Innocent Girl….blah blah. Mignini convicted criminal…”

YES, AMANDA IS OFFICIALLY INNOCENT FOR NOW. THE ITALIAN CONSTITUTION STATES THAT A DEFENDANT IS CONSIDERED INNOCENT UNTIL THERE IS A DEFINITIVE SENTENCE RENDERED BY THE SUPREME COURT.

BUT BY THE SAME TOKEN MIGNINI IS ALSO STILL INNOCENT.

AND SO IS RUDY GUEDE. WHO STILL HASN’T EXHAUSTED HIS APPEAL RIGHTS BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT.

WAS FOUND GUILTY IN THE FIRST TRIAL OF A LEGALLY ESTABLISHED COURT OF LAW OF A FREE AND SOVEREIGN NATION. SHE HAS THE RIGHT TO APPEAL.

“blah..blah…Jew masquerading as an Arab…”

I PREFER IT TO JUDAISM. THERE ARE NO 72 VIRGINS IN THE OLD TESTAMENT.

“..asked edda out…deanna rang the police..blah blah.”

NEVER MET ANY OF THE KNOX CLAN THEREFORE I NEVER ASKED THEM OUT. I DID ASK YOUR MOTHER OUT THOUGH BILLYRYAN. ASK HER HOW IT WAS. BUT MAKE SURE SHE DOESN’T SIT DOWN ON A HARD SURFACE, IN CASE IT STILL BURNS.

AND FINALLY BILLYRYAN: CAN YOU PLEASE LEARN HOW TO SPELL ENGLISH A LITTLE BETTER? NOW I KNOW WHY YOU FIND AMANDA SO APPEALING. SHE CAN’T WRITE EITHER.
Mary H. said

am February 3 2010 @ 7:21 pm

A-F-Y wrote: “Have you thought that maybe the police by then had discovered that:
- His father had called him at 20:42 and not after 23:00 as he first declared.
- His ISP couldn’t confirm internet navigation from 11:00 pm to 01:00 am.
- His call to 112 on the morning of Nov. 2 was after the police had already arrived at the scene.
- His initial deposition was not matching Amanda’s about their whereabouts on Nov. 1.
- And maybe, that some depositions by Filomena Romanelli were in conflict with his.”

Are you saying the police had all that dirt on Raffaele before his interrogation? If so, there is no reason to believe them when they say he was a witness, not a suspect. They were asking him about himself, not about the crime. His legal rights were violated when he was not provided with a lawyer and the interrogation was not taped.

While we’re discussing this, I have a question. From what I understand, the postal police say they arrived at the cottage around 12:35, but didn’t call in to the station to make a report about the cell phones until 1:00. Would you happen to know what they talked about in that phone call? Did they say they were looking for the owner of one of the cell phones, who was missing, or did they just call to report in?

According to one of the responding officers, when they got to the cottage, Amanda took him into the bathroom and showed him spots of blood. I guess that would have been around 12:40? So then what? For twenty minutes, they did not try to break down Meredith’s locked door?

They called in at 1:00, but they didn’t find the body until 1:15. That would actually make it 40 minutes between the time they say they got there, were told Meredith was missing and her door was locked, and the time they broke down the door.

That’s kinda slow.
Mary H. said

am February 3 2010 @ 7:27 pm

Oh, I just realized I have to add A-F Y to my post at 7:01 about bullying jeannette.
John Winters said

am February 3 2010 @ 7:27 pm

Al Kafupyourcommunications said:

”Amanda didn’t make a statement using the conditional mode ‘could’, as in: “somebody could have been there killing her while I was at Raffaele”.”

The term ”could” is not being used here as a ”conditional mode” (I think this must be some sort of special Italian point of grammar because it doesn’t exist in English), but as a modal auxiliary the function of which is to invest the semantic properties of the verb it accompanies (in this case, ”to be”), with as much uncertainty attached to its contextual activation as is necessary to effectively undermine its import as a statement of fact.

Furthermore, the phrase ‘’somebody could have been there killing her while I was at Raffaele” could not possibly be treated as a conditional clause or sentence, it not adhering to the grammatical regulations specifically designating the zero, first, second, third, nor indeed, mixed conditional structures.

Oh and while we’re at it, the expression ‘’see you later” in English refers to an unspecified time in the future. See you later can mean ”later today” or ”later, whenever!”

Now that we’ve established this, shall we start all over again, and get Amanda to sit down and be reinterviewed, this time with somebody present who speaks English, gobbledygook, and that strange linguistic hinterland metalanguage which exists between these two language forms familiar only to intrepids like Amanda Knox and Jim Kirk.

Beam me up S##tty!!
brickhouse said

am February 3 2010 @ 7:32 pm

Well this has been fun, catching up. Does everyone like their new nicknames? Do we need to put some more sand in the sandbox, what with all this 3rd grade wrestling and rhetoric?

Obviously for an actual discussion of the evidence and issues in this case, one needs to find another venue.
Gary said

am February 3 2010 @ 7:34 pm

To; Al-Fakh Yugoudh

when I said tortured I did not mean physiclly but mentally which is much more worse in most cases. I am stll totaly disscutted that you said Amanda is worse than the Anthony’s (Please elaorate more on that).I guarentee 100% of people would dissagree with that statement. You were either joking or your truly sick in the head. I dont need to read the rest of the testimony because it mens nothing. Now that freaky Magini hads been found guilty of abusing hid job, planting evidence,fraudulant wire taping anf false confessins his credability is as good as Casey Anthony’s.
John Winters said

am February 3 2010 @ 7:40 pm

Al Fakupyourshopping

Stick to making comments about your mystery train. That’s about all you English is good for.
Enzo Zoff said

am February 3 2010 @ 7:46 pm

@Mary H:

you say:

“Typical truejustice M.O. — Accuse someone of something but provide no documentation. Or supply half the information that is available, and pretend it is the whole story.”

or, better still, visit Anne Bremner’s web-site and try and open the letter of protest sent by Judge Heavey to the his italian counter-parts – NOTHING, it has been conveniently removed. And then, try finding the letter of apology by the same Judge – not there.

How arrogant and up yourself would you have to be to even contemplate directing another Judge, let alone in another country, to take up your suggestions?

Anyway,

This is link is dedicated to John Winters and you Mary H:

http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/ronhuff.htm

10,000 innocent people convicted in each in the US.

But don’t let the truth get in the way of your fiction.

dixi
Hector Malloy said

am February 3 2010 @ 7:48 pm

As if Mignini couldn’t make himself look any stranger…HE JUST DID:

http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2010/02/around-amanda-knox-case.html
Al-Fakh Yugoudh said

am February 3 2010 @ 7:54 pm

Joint Sphyncters:

“Oh and while we’re at it, the expression ‘’see you later” in English refers to an unspecified time in the future. See you later can mean ”later today” or ”later, whenever!”

Now that you’ve shown your knowledge of useless grammatical definitions which are of no interest to anybody except for some linguist, please sit down, dumbass, and re-read the evidence of the case.

Amanda didn’t write “see you later” in English in her message. She wrote “ci vediamo piu’ tardi” in Italian. That sentence in Italian means that we will FOR SURE meet a few hours later ON THE SAME DAY, not at some unspecified time in the future. If you’are a policeman who’s worth his salt, you will definitely insist to know whom she met after reading that message.

PS: My English may not be as great as yours, but it’s sure better than your loving Amanda, and definitely better than your Italian, dumbass.
@ "PhanuelD Student": said

am February 3 2010 @ 8:16 pm

“PhanuelD Student” said:

“If it’s part of the trial record and non-sealed, you or I or anyone else can go to the courthouse, pay $1 per page and get it. Period. And once we have it we can put it on the internet without limitation.
Any and all records of interrogations in the US are fully discoverable by the defense. Period. If an interrogation occurred and neither side wanted it in the record it might not be available to the public.

The defense in Amanda’s case has requested such electronic records of her interrogations.”
———————————————————

Why do you PRESUME the same access is unavailable in Italy?

Have you ever actually gone to an Italian courthouse and requested trial transcripts?

As for police interrogation records, why do you PRESUME they are not also discoverable by Italian defense counsel?

Apparently, you are unaware of the fact that Amanda’s lawyers successfully requested that records of the police interrogation be EXCLUDED from evidence at trial and, therefore, kept off the public record.

They did this with good reason, too, for that is the interrogation in which she admitted to a role in the killing & falsely accused an innocent black man.

That you can’t find this record is the direct result of a defense motion, rather than some covert wrongdoing on the part of the Italian government!!!

Why do you go to such lengths to distort the truth?
@ Mary H (aka Candace the Hack) said

am February 3 2010 @ 8:20 pm

Mary H. said
am February 3 2010 @ 6:47 pm

“ALL ABOUT CANDACE, you forgot the part where I asked the writer to provide the PDF capture, and she evaporated into thin air, never to be heard from again.

Typical truejustice M.O. — Accuse someone of something but provide no documentation. Or supply half the information that is available, and pretend it is the whole story.”
———————————————–

But you just said you were NOT Candace.

Oooops.

Man, you’re dumb, Candy.
@ "PhanuelD" Student said

am February 3 2010 @ 8:36 pm

“PhanuelD” Student said:

“All of the above cases pre-date the development of the pdf format… If an interrogation occurred and neither side wanted it in the record it might not be available to the public… Any interrogation of Michael Jackson would presumably be sealed because it involved minors… USA v. McVeigh
Date filed: 08/10/1995
Date terminated: 02/20/1996
Date of last filing: 02/23/1996
983 Documents. Many sealed. None in PDF format. All non sealed documents available at courthouse or by mail.

__________________________________________

ah ha!

so, even in America, you are NOT, as you tried to suggest, able to get FREE access to “FULL, UNEDITED RECORDINGS” of POLICE INTERROGATIONS in high profile cases, replete with TRANSLATION into ANY language a foreigner might request

note also that the the McVeigh file you listed took over a year to become semi-complete, with many documents remaining sealed to this day – seems unfair to expect the Italian court to be any faster at completing the public record!

Amanda’s trial ended just over 8 weeks ago! Give ‘em a chance!
Shane said

am February 3 2010 @ 8:41 pm

Enzo Zoff wrote: “This is link is dedicated to John Winters and you Mary H:

http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/ronhuff.htm

10,000 innocent people convicted in each in the US.

But don’t let the truth get in the way of your fiction. ”

I must be missing something. A link about innocent people getting convicted is supposed to convince us of Knox and Sollecito’s guilt…?
Mary H. said

am February 3 2010 @ 8:42 pm

Nice segue, Enzo. Change the subject much? You must have forgotten to take your ADD meds today.
Mary H. said

am February 3 2010 @ 8:45 pm

I’m not sure, Shane, but I THINK he’s trying to tell us the American police make mistakes so we don’t have any right to criticize the Italian police.

Maybe the Australians are perfect; that’s why Enzo gets to criticize EVERYBODY.
Mary H. said

am February 3 2010 @ 8:53 pm

Hector Malloy, thanks for the link — that’s amazing. Somebody should put that guy in a straight jacket.
Mary H. said

am February 3 2010 @ 8:57 pm

“@ Mary H (aka Candace the Hack),” I am the one who asked her to produce the PDF capture. Go back to the examiner page where you found the post and you will see my name, Mary H.

http://www.examiner.com/x-32288-Spokane-Elections-2010-Examiner~y2010m1d26-Perugia-murder-a-laughing-matter-for-Seattle-comedy-fundraiser-for-Amanda-Knox-January-26thRenee-Pe?commented#comments
LOL @ Judge 'My daughter went to Amanda's prep school' Heavy said

am February 3 2010 @ 9:55 pm

try and open the letter of protest sent by Judge Heavey to the his italian counter-parts – NOTHING, it has been conveniently removed. And then, try finding the letter of apology by the same Judge – not there.

How arrogant and up yourself would you have to be to even contemplate directing another Judge, let alone in another country, to take up your suggestions?
________________________________________

good point

BTW, that letter by Judge Heavy not only embarrassed him, it was the reason the Italians decided to give Amanda the ‘Casey Anthony Treatment’ and keep her in jail pending trial.

They realized that if Amanda returned to Seattle before her trial, Judge Heavy himself would be the very judge that would have to sign Amanda’s extradition order.

The Italian court took note of the bias in Heavy’s ridiculous letter and (wisely) denied her bail.

Heavy is now a disgrace to the bench.
All About Candy said

am February 3 2010 @ 10:31 pm

I hope Candy Dumpster’s book sells enough copies to cover a 2nd nose job.

Those jowls & that massive neck wattle could use some work, too, especially since she’s taken to trying to pass herself off as being 40 (she’s about to turn 60).

It’s probably too late to undo the psychological damage flowing from decades of being ‘the uggo chick with a lisp’, but you never know…

It might make her a better person – the kind that wouldn’t lie and demean Meredith’s memory for money.
Magnum P.I. said

am February 3 2010 @ 10:48 pm

I think I know “PhanuelD” – he lives in the thriving cultural hub that is Grafton.

Your massive one-man blogging campaign won’t help you, bud – Amanda won’t be coming your way if she ever gets out.
jim said

am February 3 2010 @ 11:07 pm

mary H either u are misinformed or that u are totally overlooking the existing facts. mainly u also make urselves believe what u want to believe. first of all, all the roomies had returened including people living downstairs . there was some lead or suspicion that both amanda and her boyfiriend casted that led them to talk to them again 4 days later. like the way they behaved even in the morning after murder.they were recalled for second interrogation by cops because of their inconsistencies in the first place. that morning police showed up at the cottage becuz neighbors found the cell phones in their backyard. her botfriend called cops after postal police arrived. then they were standing ourside with a mop and bucket. then when police went upstairs the whole place was smelling due to bleach cleanup. then when her roomate arrived before they broke the victim’s door, amanda kept on saying that merredith always keeps her door locked or closed. her roomate Roamanelli told cops that morning, infact she never keeps her door locked its very unusual. then her roomate told police the same morning that amanda told her that she took shower that morning, imean in a cold cottage without any heat and bloodstained batthroom! Romaneli also told cops that when she said how dreadful way victim died, then amanda said “shit happens”, “what do u think she fucking bled to death!. then her roomate and cops also were amazed that amanda didnt actualy see the body when the door was broken down only to discover the blooody body, but she did tell the roomate that body was near the closet.then there was this strange behavior of both of them kissing and cuddling the same morning when every roomate incl guys were crying. then u see them buying a thong a day after the murder and her boyfriend saying that we will have a wild sex. do u know anyone whose roomate she knew for 3 months being not only murdered but butcherded enjoying themselves, not even shedding a single tear ? she wasnt just a neighbor but a roomate. so when cops saw all these things i mentioned then they began suspecting them and that led to second interview. so there leads that led to the second interview. thats what cops and people in law are for to dtect any suspicion and then lead on that. in the second interview she changed her story and blamed it on someone else? u said she was vulnerable thats why she changed her story? why was she vulnerable when her concsience was clean? then she wrote on a piece of paper and put her boss’s name down? imean why wuld cops and the prosecuter are against her, why wuld they have a personal grudge against her and her boyfriend, who by the way is italian and comes from a rich family? why wuld cops be against her? . it doesnt make anysense . she didnt have any past personal feud or grudge relationship with the public prosecuter that he will come after her at the interrogation. any police anywhere in a murder case will be hard and strong in their interview. but if u are innocent u will continue saying that u didnt do it and that u were not there. no police or prosecuter esp i a civilzed european country can coerce a false confession from a murder suspect if they are innocent. the only way they can do it is to drug some one.even the terrorists interrogated in the united states in the harshest way didnt change their story or didnt tell the secrets of their oragnization. so the only way as logic will dictate is that she must be lyimg . becuz notice she said i was there but my boss murdered her. so she was pretty much with it to present a scenario that she didnt do it but knew who didit. u may not accept it but it doesnt make any logical sense that the prosecuter and cops mader her to make false confession. only liars make such confession, people whose conscience is clean will not be afraid of anything and will not breakdown in esp a murder case interrogation. how come that boss who was arrested and interrogated didn’t breakdown like amanda and admitted his guilt by saying that he may have murdered her, as amanda says that she may have been at the cottage.? well becuz since he didnt do it, his conscience was clean so he didnt breakdown and maintained only one story and esp didnt blame it on someone else. she is a compulsive liar a sociopath, socio paths lie as if they are telling truth. by the way i dont know if u know that there is no evidence to her claim that she was mistreated thats what recent investigation has concluded, she is being charged for this slander now.then u say that the store guy came after few months to testify in the courst, but what differnce does it make he did nt come after the trial he came during the trial and testified as a witness that he saw amanda in the store. the court admitted his testimony, rite? obviously his coming after months must be still in the legal frame work . i mean this is a modern , civil european court. not some military tribunal. whuy wuld anyone discredit a modern civil court esp in europe?then finally u said that murderers do admit yes they do but its very rare most murderers maintain their innocence, becuz most of them are sociopaths and lying is what they do. th cases i know most have maintanied their innocene.u call them kids , amanda and her botfriend and that prosecuter didnt mkake them admit! frist of all they have been convicted by a modern, civil european court, 20 some judges looked at this case for 2yrs, they esp that boy friend ha the top lawyers, that boyfriend’s lawyer is top notch, she has defended the prime minister of italy. and yet her boyfriend is convicted. so i dont understand why people like u are doubting this court.why they dont admit despite of this becuz both of them are decitful, cunning and soul less , psycopaths and they will lie their crime forever. because sociopaths dont even recognize that they are lying, they state their lie as if they are telling truth, boyfriend didnt testify that itself to the court is an admission of the guilt, even that evil beast amanda knox said in the jail after guilt that the trial was fair. so it is a subconscious admission.u will see they will never get thru the appeals there is lots evidence to prove their guilt, its called circumstantial evidence
Mary H. said

am February 4 2010 @ 12:45 am

I-yi-yi, did I just get caught in a time machine that took me back to 2007?

I am always blown away by the gall of people who get on these blogs knowing absolutely nothing but not letting that stop them from “correcting” people who follow the case.

Best comment of the day, from billyryan:

“…yet every selective leak from the interrogation is a cast iron fact,…”

And I do believe that is irony.
Enzo Zoff said

am February 4 2010 @ 1:35 am

@Mary H:

Mary, Mary,[or rather Candance], me critizise everybody?

With Valentine’s Day on the horizon, a rose for you for every post i have made that supports your allegation.

I have long given up any attempt at a meaningful exchange of ideas with FOA puppets like you and my favorite John ‘here’s Joohhnnyyy’ Winters, and merely amuse myself, in a cynical way mind you, at how you entangle seemingly intelligent people in your ridiculous commentary until they give up with despair.

No, no! Australia does NOT have a perfect legal system at all. Like all democracies, like Italy,UK and the US she too has her problems pretty much along the same lines; judges, juries, slow systems, questionable police methods etc …….

Dis-appointed, Mary, Candance or whoever?

That’s why I dedicated the link to you and John ‘here’s Joohhnnyyy’ Winters about innocent people being convicted within the context that you two have been the prime movers on other blogs in discrediting the Italian judicial system as if all other nationals are faultless. That’s why Amanda is in jail, right? It’s the slack italian judiciary fueled by AmandaHaters.

Have i forgotten to take my meds today? Please direct me where and I will; although I must confess I have resorted to reading your comments when in need of a strong laxative.

dixi
Tony Del Blazo said

am February 4 2010 @ 1:40 am

Jim,
Not an original thought in your entire piece except for the concept of the Italians having a MODERN court system.

I am sure that others will butcher you on this better than I but I do have to mention that the reason I originally got interested in this case was the notion that Italy puts people convicted of murder and possibly other crimes in solitary confinement for the first nine months of their term. Magnini asked for this in the Kircher case.

So much for concept of a MODERN court system.
IVSTITIA said

am February 4 2010 @ 1:45 am

I don’t think you guys can come to an agreement. Why don’t you all put it to rest and let the Italian courts take care of this case?

You can blog all year, and get frustrated as much as you like, but in reality everybody here is powerless because the Italian judges in the end will be the one to decide.

As a somebody who knows Italian law and procedure better than anybody here, I want you to know that the Italian judiciary enjoys and extraordinary level of independence and autonomy from the political pressure exerted by legislators and the executive. Italian judges are not elected or appointed. They become judges after a very rigorous selection process administered by the judiciary’s self governing body, the Superior Council of Magistrates. This is composed of Judges elected in part by the magistrates themselves (judges and prosecutors) in national elections, and in part it is composed of University Law professors appointed by Parliament.
The same is true for prosecutors. Unlike in the US, where District Attorneys are appointed by Governors or elected in political elections, Italian prosecutors are selected through the same selection process used to select judges. It’s based on knowledge of the law, not on party affiliation.

Also, not only judges and prosecutors aren’t appointed by the executive power or by the legislators, but they cannot be removed or disciplined or even transferred, except for through a motion by the same Superior Council of Magistrates adopted by majority vote.

Interestingly Italy is the only country where the State District Attorneys (the Prosecutors by Mignini) are not members of the Executive. They also are selected, disciplined and removed by the same Superior Council.

The Italian Constitutional framers established such powerful magistrates totally independent from political interference for a reason. Because a guy named Mussolini, used prosecutors and judges to promote his political agenda, namely to persecute political opponents. The Italian constitution, promulgated in 1948 intended to avoid such interference and abuse of power by the executive.

Because of this, this campaign perpetrated by some elements near the Knox family will be totally useless. If their intention is to apply pressure on the Italian politicians to take action against the judges, Italian politicians simply can’t do anything about it. We’ve seen that with the investigation of the CIA and SISMI spies involved in the extraordinary rendition of Abu Omar, Italian and American spies were convicted in spite of the Italian Government criticism of the prosecutors’ investigation.

This campaign is also having a negative effect on the Italian people. Most are not very happy with the disparaging and interference coming out of Seattle. And I heard from my relatives in Perugia, that people aren’t too happy about how their city has been portrayed. Some here might say: who cares about what people say in Perugia. Well, may I remind you that the 6 jurors will come from Perugia, not from Seattle.

So. Keep it up. Keep putting down Perugia and Italy and their judges. But don’t forget that Amanda’s destiny is actually in the hands of the very people you’re continuously insulting in these blogs.

“La legge e’ uguale per tutti”
Tony Del Balzo said

am February 4 2010 @ 1:54 am

Simple solution:

Lie detectors for EVERYONE involved including every policeman, or
Sodium Pentothal (Truth Serum). (but not too much as its fatal.) Too many have died already.

Instant gratification.
Mary H. said

am February 4 2010 @ 2:05 am

Har de har har, Enzo. I am in stitches!

“….discrediting the Italian judicial system as if all other nationals are faultless.”

As I tried to explain to you on another blog, lo, these many moons ago, discrediting the Italian justice system is an isolated claim. It has as much to do with the faults of other national justice systems as it has to do with the fact that the sky is blue or the hypothesis that the moon is made of green cheese.

In other words, I am not discrediting the Italian justice system “as if” anything else — I am simply discrediting the Italian justice system. Why do you presume to know what I have not written?

Every time anyone makes any kind of criticism whatsoever, I think it’s safe to assume they have at least as many shortcomings as the object or person they are criticizing. What the heck, we let them do it anyway. If everyone who called Amanda promiscuous had to be a virgin, well, there would be hardly anyone posting at all.
colonelhall said

am February 4 2010 @ 2:07 am

Jim and Billy Ryan. Is there any reason why you are not attempting to use anything resembling normal punctuation?

If you start each sentence with a capital letter and leave a gap after each full stop, your posts would be easier to read.

I know that we all have different knowledge of grammar and nobody is perfect, but I get the impression that you are choosing not to use capitals.

I only say this because I have given up reading what you have to say, because it is so difficult to read. Your posts are so longs so it would be a shame if you were wasting your time.
Enzo Zoff said

am February 4 2010 @ 2:10 am

@IVSTITIA:

“I don’t think you guys can come to an agreement. Why don’t you all put it to rest and let the Italian courts take care of this case?”

Are you kidding?

The Perugian police beat the shit out of Amanda; interrogated her for 40 hours straight; tricked her into a written confession [or was it 2]; made her do cartwheels; no lawyer present; no camera taping; manipulated evidence; removed evidence; introduced evidence; mis-handled evidence; invented evidence; Magini is a cuckooo; an idiot; a criminal; the jury was not sequestrated; the judge didn’t look Curt Knox in the eye; no DNA, too little DNA, wrong DNA, contaminated DNA, and ……..

they don’t speak english!

The fight must go on !!!

dixi
Mary H. said

am February 4 2010 @ 2:14 am

Ivstitia wrote: “….but in reality everybody here is powerless because the Italian judges in the end will be the one to decide…..Because of this, this campaign perpetrated by some elements near the Knox family will be totally useless.”

These are good messages to get across to the truejustice proselytizers, who are constantly trying to frighten people into thinking the Marriott firm controls their minds and the minds of American media professionals.

Ivsitia then wrote: “Well, may I remind you that the 6 jurors will come from Perugia, not from Seattle.

So. Keep it up. Keep putting down Perugia and Italy and their judges. But don’t forget that Amanda’s destiny is actually in the hands of the very people you’re continuously insulting in these blogs.”

Are you saying there is a danger the jury could be swayed by their feelings toward Seattle, or by what they read on the blogs?
Mary H. said

am February 4 2010 @ 2:33 am

Ivstitia, did you see Bill Edelblute’s new article on the examiner — “Why does Mignini continue a “carousel” of defamation suits?”

He writes: “Perhaps it is the cultural and legal differences between the U.S. and Italy, but it is difficult to imagine a legal system that can withstand several new, distinct cases against various parties springing from every conviction.”
John Winters said

am February 4 2010 @ 6:17 am

colonelhall says:

”I only say this because I have given up reading what you have to say, because it is so difficult to read. Your posts are so longs so it would be a shame if you were wasting your time.”

That doesn’t go for the rest of us Billy, we like the clear, punchy way you write. Not all of us need to be addressed by some ponsy git with pompous notions of linguistic superiority.

Keep it up Billy!!
B. Woodward said

am February 4 2010 @ 6:23 am

Mary H wrote:

“…constantly trying to frighten people into thinking the Marriott firm controls their minds and the minds of American media professionals.”
————————————————-

I don’t think the Marriott PR firm is frightening per se.

What’s scares me is the death of investigative journalism.

One-sided coverage is the norm now. There is no balance. You never hear the OTHER side of the story. There is no quest for truth. Just ratings & money.

Nixon would have had 2 terms if the press corps back then was as flimsy as it is now.
John Winters said

am February 4 2010 @ 6:58 am

Mignini is as mad as a March hare.
Gary said

am February 4 2010 @ 7:04 am

The fact remains that we now have a prosecutor that has been found guilty of multiple counts of abuse of his job. This alone should mean all cases he prosecuted should be re-examined and the good majority of convictions overturned. If you are convicted of planting evidence as a prosecutor you should automatically be fired from your job and all cases he tried should be re-tried or just overturned. Funny how the freak was found guilty of planting evidence along with all kinds of other violations of abuse of his job yet he is still free and still able to work his job. WHAT ON EARTH KIND OF SYSTEM DO THEY HAVE OVER THERE IN ITALY???? How come Amanda has to stay in jail while on appeal? She should be allowed to go free and go back to school while her case is in appeals. Well I’ll say this much. I can guarantee that this Magini freak has planted evidence and has tailored the false confession to his made up version of events. This man needs a jail cell not an office at the attorney’s office making up more lies and planting more evidence.
Enzo Zoff said

am February 4 2010 @ 7:09 am

@Mary H:

so here I am weighing whether I should or shouldn’t answer your usual dribble and in the end, for the benefit of the public interest, I said ‘you have to do it!’.

Now, mind you, I’ve had to reduce this to basic stuff, you know, apples and oranges, so here we go.

Mary, communication is like a ‘doughnut’; it’s made up of the solid part and the ‘hole’ in the middle. You cannot ‘NOT’ think of a doughnut without including the ‘hole’. Otherwise it would not be a doughnut.

That’s how YOU communicate, in the main. Not just you, but, especially you.

Let’s call what you write ‘content’. Now, what you write ‘actually’ PLUS what you DON’T write creates a ‘context’. ‘Context’ is THE doughnut; made up of the content you have written and that which you ‘HAVE NOT’.

You use this technique to great effect; you create a ‘context’ to which we all react BUT at your convenience and calling you childishly deny the initial intended ‘message’ without taking responsibility.

Here is an innocuous example which illustrates what I mean. Note, that the ‘unsaid’ is in brackets:

‘the jury was NOT sequestrated!’ [ therefore, italian juries are manipulated, unreliable, easily influenced, irresponsible etc, and as a CAUSE she is in jail. Your intended message? Amanda did not get a fair trial .....].

The TRUTH: juries are NOT sequestrated in the US and other countries either, BUT of course the likes of Egan skilfully leaves this out; experience has taught him that gullibility is heavily entrenched in most of the public’s DNA, especially Seattle.

But, whilst one reader ‘reacts’ to the obvious omission:’ juries are NOT sequestrated in the US either’; other pinheads and dipsticks who don’t know any better post comments agreeing with the ‘ unsaid ‘ ; italian juries, the judiciary is a failure, not ‘per se ‘ , but as a CAUSE for finding Knox guilty.

Then, when someone like myself [an AmandaHater] calls you on your posts:

You simply say:

‘Why do you presume to know what I have not written?’

Mary H, could it be because you yelled out doughnut to us?

dixi
Enzo Zoff said

am February 4 2010 @ 8:40 am

@John Winters:

here’s Jooohhhnnnyyyy ….

unbelievable, like clockwork, you are !

But, who are you kidding ? @Gary said: that’s really you, isn’t it ?

dixi
Enzo Zoff said

am February 4 2010 @ 8:47 am

@Shane:

“I must be missing something.”

yep, you got that part right!

dixi
Enzo Zoff said

am February 4 2010 @ 8:52 am

@jim said:

hey man !

please, would you kindly leave this blog immediately ????

you are making too much sense, you AmandaHater, you !!!

dixi
Enzo Zoff said

am February 4 2010 @ 8:55 am

@brickhouse said:

Man, spot on !!!

dixi
PhanuelB said

am February 4 2010 @ 9:02 am

DStudent:”That you can’t find this record is the direct result of a defense motion, rather than some covert wrongdoing on the part of the Italian government!!!”

False. What the defense has a right to under discovery is not the same what is presented to a jury. I would by the way be curious to see the judge’s instructions to the jury, just to make sure the basics are there — no watching media; only what is presented in court, etc.

You may well be correct that certain of her statements (a very small part of what actually was said and asked) were ruled by a higher court to be inadmissible — meaning the jury can’t consider them. That single out of context document is a very different thing from the full interrogation record. Whether that means they are stricken from the record or sealed is another question.

Interrogations were not an important part of the US cases cited above (OJ, Jackson, etc) but in Amanda’s case they form the foundation of the argument for those who think she did it.

Here is a link to a New York State Court showing how records — including deposition testimony — can be downloaded by anyone with an internet connection.

http://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/iscroll/SQLData.jsp?IndexNo=601305-2007

The defense has asked for all electronic records of her interrogation. If every one of them isn’t provided, the entire trial would have no validity in a civilized society. If they were never made it’s because a corrupt and incompetent prosecution team didn’t want the world to know the truth.
Enzo Zoff said

am February 4 2010 @ 9:12 am

@Billy:

I agree with John ‘here’s Jooohhhnnnyyy’ Winters:

Keep it up Billy!

…. and while it’s up, do you happen, per chance, do be anywhere in the vicinity of ‘here’s Jooohhhnnnyyy’ Winters?

‘Coz, there’s a small favour I would like you to do for all of us …..

dixi
colonelhall said

am February 4 2010 @ 9:17 am

JOHN WINTERS: “Not all of us need to be addressed by some ponsy git with pompous notions of linguistic superiority.”

Although there are many people here with whom I disagree. You are the one who comes across as a really are a nasty piece of work! I politely pointed out that these guys are posting but not getting their message across because their style of punctuation makes their posts difficult to read.

I pointed out that we all have different levels of literary skills and tried to make my point politely. There was nothing approaching “inguistic superiority” in my post.

Why do you feel it necessary to insult people. like this?
colonelhall said

am February 4 2010 @ 9:18 am

Typo error in the last post, but I guess that you can see that I meant

“You are the one who comes across as a really nasty piece of work!
Shane said

am February 4 2010 @ 10:03 am

Enzo wrote: “yep, you got that part right!

dixi”

Goodness, such sparkling wit!
IVSTITIA said

am February 4 2010 @ 12:57 pm

Not much time for me to be on blogs. Too much work this week.

To answer to Mary H. These blogs are not reaching the Italians. The only Italians who read them are probably Italian Americans like me who live in the US.

Also very little chance that the potential jurors read blogs, including Italian ones. The requirements to serve as jurors, including age requirements, are such that the age groups who use blogs in Italy cannot serve in a jury. In the Knox/Sollecito trial only 2 jurors were under 40 yrs old , the youngest (incidentally a trial lawyer) was 36. Blogs participation in the age groups over 40 is rather low in Italy. Computer use is lower than in the US, especially for those older age groups, although mobile phone penetration is much higher than the US (but not too many access the net via the mobile phone to blog).

However, I presume that your target audience is not the Italian public opinion in Italy, but rather the American one. The hope of those who defend Knox is probably to convince enough people in the US to rise up and start protesting with the local US politicians so that they, in turn, will complain to the Italian authorities.

A complaint by US officials to the Italian authorities or even to the press (as it happened with Maria Cantwell) will definitely reach the Italian public opinion. Sen. Cantwell’s comments made front news in Italy, and the decision not to name the Seattle park after Perugia (which already has a park dedicated to Seattle) was front news in Perugia (and back page news in the rest of Italy). Italians at large were very p.o.’d about the first one, even in Berlusconi’s newspaper, which is notoriously very critical of the Italian judiciary due to the fact they are trying to convict their master (Berlusconi). The second news about the park was received very negatively in Perugia, hence the intervention by the Perugia mayor. Actually there are now in Facebook, some Perugia bloggers who are calling for the end of the sister city relationship with Seattle.

First of all both the judiciary and the police are not under the control of City Government, unlike in the US. The Polizia di Stato and the Carabinieri are both national law enforcement agencies much like the FBI, and therefore totally outside of the purview of the Mayor and the City of Perugia.

But also these types of interference and criticism always makes people become very nationalistic. It’s one thing to debate the evidence, it’s another to trash the entire Italian institutions. The same thing would happen if a foreign nation and their officials started criticizing the US institutions.

That is why the lawyers defending Amanda were totally P.O.’d at Maria Cantwell’s remarks and her call to H. Clinton to intervene. It doesn’t help their cause when the judges, who are the ones who will ultimately decide on AK and RS’s fate, are portrayed as a bunch of incompetent and corrupt actors of a corrupt and unfair system. Good luck gaining their symphathy with that kind of talk.
billyryan said

am February 4 2010 @ 1:13 pm

mignini is suing more people his lust for the limelight will probally cause him to make mistakes.there are a lot of people in italy now who know exactly the thug amanda was up against.the last chapter in any book about a thug like mignini was always about the men who brought him down.it is hard to deny now that he is out to destroy as many innocent lives as he can
colonelhall said

am February 4 2010 @ 1:56 pm

Billy Ryan, I see that you still choose to do away with punctuation. Do you not want people to understand what you are saying? Just a capital to start a sentence and then a gap after each full stop and I guarantee, more people will take notice.
Al-Fakh Yugoudh said

am February 4 2010 @ 2:11 pm

HillyBillyRyan, I’m sure you went to a jesuit school to learn how to write. You’re just as bad as Amanda.

Mignini is a good man. There should be more prosecutors like him. Unfortunately you liberals don’t appreciate people who are tough on crime. You just want murderers, drug addicts, pushers and sex offenders in the streets of America. There are already many of them on the loose, and now you even want to import some from overseas, like Amanda Knox, who’s all of the above.
John Winters said

am February 4 2010 @ 2:16 pm

colonelhall says:

”You are the one who comes across as a really nasty piece of work!”

Which is kind of interesting for me to ponder coz I’ve endeavoured when writing on these blogs in Amanda’s defense, to be as reflecting as possible.

You personally are not in my mind when I say this colonelhall. I am really thinking of the kind of people (and there are plenty of them when you venture abroad), who cast Amanda in the same light as Myra Hindley, and feel that she is a legitimate target for personal humiliation and insult of the most disgusting order.

This is something up with which I will not put because Amanda is not like Myra Hindley who was guilty of the crimes she was charged with.
Al-Fakh Yugoudh said

am February 4 2010 @ 2:42 pm

John Sphyncters:

Amanda is guilty of the crimes whe was charged which. A jury decided so, and the appeal will probably confirm it.

Amanda will stay in prison for several more years, because that’s where she belongs. Get used to that idea.
@"PhanuelD Student" said

am February 4 2010 @ 2:43 pm

Amanda’s defense team ensured that the interrogation records were kept OUT of evidence at trial.

They had to, for in that interrogation Amanda admitted to a role in the murder and accused an black innocent man.

To wit, it is Amanda that wanted and NEEDED the record hidden, not the prosecution.

The court granted HER request.

Now you turn around and accuse the court of corruption.

If court had allowed it in evidence, you would have cried foul again.

With you, they’re damed if they do and damned if they don’t – a sure sign that you’re a dunce.
PhanuelB said

am February 4 2010 @ 2:53 pm

@IVSTITIA:”It doesn’t help their cause when the judges, who are the ones who will ultimately decide on AK and RS’s fate, are portrayed as a bunch of incompetent and corrupt actors of a corrupt and unfair system.”

Too bad if they don’t like it. There are reasons that democracies have free speech. Does anyone really think that it’s OK for a judge to find somebody guilty because they’re angry about outside criticism? And what are we supposed to do when specific people if not the entire system take a wrong turn?

The Italian justice system is corrupt in Amanda’s case because:
1) The prosecutor has been convicted of corruption in an unrelated case.
2) His jailing of Mario Spezi was motivated by self-interest. The idea that Spezi was interfering with a criminal investigation is a joke.
3) Doug Preston’s firsthand account of his interrogation by Mignini. The idea that Preston was interfering with a murder investigation is a joke. The interrogation was motivated by the self-interest.
4) Italian police have not provided electronic recordings of Amanda’s interrogation because they don’t want anyone to know what was actually said or asked.
5) The public does not have full access to the trial record which impedes their right to determine the quality of justice.
6) Patrizia Stefanoni only provided the infamous “Too Low” notes when compelled to do so toward the end of the trial.
7) Mignini intimidated Francesca Bene into not talking about a local drug addict she had seen only hours before the discovery of Meredith’s body with enough blood on him to require an ambulance. See the Afterword of Preston’s book, The Monster of Florence.

The Italian Police are incompetent because:
1) They failed to recover the bra clasp until 47 days after the murder.
2) Patrizia Stefanoni was not properly trained in Low Copy Number (LCN) DNA testing
3) They destroyed at least two hard drives that contained important evidence
4) They failed to arrest Rudy Guede four days before the murder even though they knew of his involvement in three separate breaking and entering incidents. Meredith Kercher would still be alive if the Italian police had done their job and taken him out of circulation prior to the murder.
5) They failed to examine the drain pipes in Raffaele’s house. If their theories are true they would have found blood and bleach there.
6) They failed to protect the crime scene from a break-in in Mar-08 while it was still secured and under their control.
7) They have failed to take DNA samples from the individual identified by Francesca Bene to see if his DNA was at the crime scene.
They have failed to properly investigate the individual identified by Francesca Bene.
Matthew McCarthy said

am February 4 2010 @ 3:00 pm

It’s ironic anyone who thinks Knox was falsely accused overlooks the fact that she falsely accused her employer – Patrick Lumumba – of the murder. He was jailed for 2 weeks, but I guess he’s not cute enough for anyone to care about.
The court ordered Knox to pay him $60,000 – that’s where the funds raised should go.
PhanuelB said

am February 4 2010 @ 3:05 pm

@DStudent:”Amanda’s defense team ensured that the interrogation records were kept OUT of evidence at trial.”

Utterly and absolutely false. The defense has repeatedly asked for the FULL interrogation record and it has not been provided to them. The documents they sought to keep out the the trial were edited portions of the larger record which the prosecution had choosen. You can’t look at what somebody says without knowing what they were asked and in what context.

An impartial jury cannot pass judgment on any interrogation evidence unless the defense has access to EVERTHING that occurred during the interrogation.
Kim Bailey said

am February 4 2010 @ 3:27 pm

PhanuelB “An impartial jury cannot pass judgment on any interrogation evidence unless the defense has access to EVERTHING that occurred during the interrogation.”

Nonsense. The courts in every country regularly disallow evidences. Many times it is because of some minor human error like forgetting to get a search warrant. Happens all the time in the US.
Kim Bailey said

am February 4 2010 @ 4:00 pm

PhanuelB said; “The Italian justice system is corrupt in Amanda’s case because:… Doug Preston’s firsthand account of his interrogation by Mignini. The idea that Preston was interfering with a murder investigation is a joke. The interrogation was motivated by the self-interest.”

Admittedly I did not read your post to the end, but the above stupidity had to be responded to urgently. Preston’s account proves nothing about the Kercher case. What Preston’s story proves is that the Italian justice system works and very speedily. He was questioned one day and the next day he left Italy, because he was innocent. If Knox was innocent she to would be back in the US.
PhanuelB said

am February 4 2010 @ 4:06 pm

@KimBailey:”Nonsense. The courts in every country regularly disallow evidences.”

Prosecution evidence, absolutely. Defense evidence, almost never.

If some statement in an interrogation is important to the prosecution, the defense has a right to everything and anything that is known about the entire interrogation, particularly where there are issues of duress, coercion, or worse. That’s intuitively obvious..
Honesty - Please said

am February 4 2010 @ 4:15 pm

“PhanuelD Student” said

The defense has repeatedly asked for the FULL interrogation record and it has not been provided to them.

—————————————-

You are dead wrong.

Show us a source for your claim!

Amanda confesses to a role in the murder and accuses an innocent black man in that interrogation.

Amanda appealed to the Supreme Court to keep that interrogation OUT of her trial.

They gave her what she wanted.

And now you claim it’s a ‘cover-up’! Absurd!

The only one seeking to hide the interrogation is Amanda.
Kim Bailey said

am February 4 2010 @ 4:18 pm

PhanuelB, explain to me what “almost never” means in legal terms and then I will reply to your post.
Honesty - Please said

am February 4 2010 @ 4:21 pm

When asked which female cop ‘cuffed’ her on the head twice, she:

a) could not provide the officer’s name; &

b) could not provide a basic physical description of the officer.

Ever heard the adage that “lies have no details’?

Amanda is Seattle’s answer Casey Anthony.
Kim Bailey said

am February 4 2010 @ 4:21 pm

PhanuelB, Give me the legal definition for “intuitively obvious” too. If you have time.
Al-Fakh Yugoudh said

am February 4 2010 @ 4:27 pm

PhallusB: You are corrupt and incompetent. If you were Amanda’s lawyer there is no doubt she’d lose all appeals.

Amanda’s and Raffaele’s lawyers, as well as lots of Italian legal experts, found no fault in the trial proceedings. Amanda’s lawyers may not have been happy with the verdict, but they didn’t question the fairness of the trial, and actually said it was conducted fairly.

You can think whatever you want, but it won’d change anything. You are a worthless piece of merda.

Next case please!
Honesty - Please said

am February 4 2010 @ 4:27 pm

All this talk about Doofus Preston is a joke.

They let him go!

His story is proof that Mignini does NOT push for wrongful convictions to ’save face.’
PhanuelB said

am February 4 2010 @ 4:30 pm

@KimBailey:”He[Preston] was questioned one day and the next day he left Italy, because he was innocent. If Knox was innocent she to would be back in the US.”

Yes Preston was innocent and he left Italy the next day because he took seriously the threats of a corrupt public official. Preston’s account of his encounter with Mignini has everything to do with understanding Amanda’s interrogation.

Here is the first hand account of Doug Preston on his interrogation by Mignini. Preston is an accomplished author who was in Italy writing a book about a set of serial killings in Florence during the 80’s. The idea that he was interfering with a murder investigation is preposterous.

“I was required to appear before Mignini, where he and several policemen interrogated me for almost three hours, in Italian, with no interpreter and no access to a lawyer. During the interrogation, Mignini accused me of several serious crimes, including planting a gun as false evidence to mislead police, obstruction of justice, and being an accessory to murder. He hinted that I might have had doings with a satanic cult. He demanded I confess to these crimes and said that if I did not, he would indict me for reticenza, reticence, a form of perjury. When I refused to confess to these ludicrous and patently false accusations…”

“In my entire journalistic career I have not experienced the kind of abuse of prosecutorial power as I witnessed in Italy.”
jiminy said

am February 4 2010 @ 4:31 pm

PhallusB = just another Grafton fucktard.
Al-Fakh Yugoudh said

am February 4 2010 @ 4:44 pm

PhallusB: Read what actually happened.
He was notified by the prosecutor that he had rendered false statements to him and therefore he was in violation of the law. As a result Mignini told Preston that he could not proceed with the interrogation and that he was advised to seek legal representation.

Rendering false statements while you’re being interrogated as a witness is an offence. Doug Preston was guilty of that. He did right to leave the country the next day though. He was probably telling lies to the prosecutor exactly like Amanda did, and you can actually go to jail for that.

Amanda is guilty like sin! And so is Raffaele. They’re two coke heads drug addict killers. Nobody needs scum like that walking in the streets. Let them rot in jail.
billyryan said

am February 4 2010 @ 5:09 pm

mignini is now stepping on a lot of toes it is only a matter of time before these people unite and his come uppance can not be far away.al_fucking_useless mabey my grammer is not all it could be,but i dont have a dark side about wanting to torture young girls. i bet you know well amanda is innocent but this is what makes this case so appealing to you.having cried yourself to sleep for years over been too young to have joined the varteen ss this case is allowing you to live out your fantasies. I congratulate planuelB on your excellent posts you can always tell how al_shit is struggling when he posts under a few of his alaises. amanda will be home to a hero welcome in 2010 mignini will be in jail and al_suck_himself will have climed back down whatever shithole he climbed up out of
daisy said

am February 4 2010 @ 5:18 pm

You guys are a hoot! Keep it coming.
Kim Bailey said

am February 4 2010 @ 5:28 pm

PhanuelB, If I commit murder in Utah I should go free because the same prosecutor who questioned me wrongly accused a prisoner in Guantanamo Bay. I don’t care if they pulled out all 10 of Preston’s nails – his case has nothing to do with the Kercher case. Even if what DP says is true it still proves nothing for AK’s defense.

Raffaele refused to testify for Knox or even corroborate her alibi. There is a recording on YouTube, in Knox’s own words, she says Raffaele is a liar – regarding the night of the murder. She is asking the courts to believe that she spent the entire night with Raffaele, then in the same statement she says he is lying about that night. She is where she belongs.
colonelhall said

am February 4 2010 @ 5:34 pm

Billy Ryan: ” mabey my grammer is not all it could be”
Nobody’s perfect, but Just try using sentences. Take my advice. Start each one with a capital, end each one with a full stop and then leave a space.

Try it – it will work wonders. People may be swayed by your arguments. They may all start to clamour for the release of young Amanda and it would all be down to you!
colonelhall said

am February 4 2010 @ 5:37 pm

John Winters – Your writing skills seem to be fine, yet still people seem to be avers to your powers of reasoning. Here’s my tip for you – Try to be pleasant for a change. Even Mary can do that!
Enzo Zoff said

am February 4 2010 @ 5:40 pm

@billyryan:

What vast improvement on your previous posts!

…..keep up the good work, you hear ?
PhanuelB said

am February 4 2010 @ 5:56 pm

First some requested sources:

Doug Preston, CNN Anderson Cooper 360, 4-Dec-09: “Well, let me talk about this interrogation. The police first claim that they’d lost the videotape or the audiotape of the interrogation. And then they claim that they never made one to begin with, and then they claimed that they don’t even have a transcript of this interrogation.”

Tim Egan, NY Times, 12-Jun-09: “The duress argument is crucial in this case. Knox, who is 21 and a study-abroad college student from the University of Washington in Seattle, was subject to an all-night grilling without a lawyer or a professional translator. The transcript, if one does exist, of that interrogation has never been made public. We have only the word of a prosecutor who is now on trial for his own misconduct in unrelated cases. And we now have Knox’s testimony.”

CNN and the NY Times are reliable sources.

The request by the defense for the interrogation record? See the record of the case. Preston says it’s there. Of course that is complicated by the fact that Italian law does not permit full public access to the trial record.
Answer This said

am February 4 2010 @ 6:00 pm

There are a lot of blogs attacking people who were involved on all sides in this case. Most, if not all, of the evidence presented was circumstantial, and based on this, it would only take ONE concrete piece of information to provide an alibi for AK and RS.
One, thats all. If it was there then it would come out, everything else has.
I’m tired of hearing, ‘mis-handling of evidence’, ‘corruption’, ‘cover-up’, ‘contamination’, ‘abusive interrogation’, and all the other things that are bandied about as if they have been shown to have any real substance to them.

Lets see a witness, a phone call, a story by AK or RS that can be verified independently. Giving each other alibies !!!???? They cant even do that, drugs or no drugs, even though they had two years to think about it.
I feel really sorry for Meredith and her family. I also feel sorry for Amanda and Rafaelle’s parents. They are fighting, like any parents would, for their kids. The publicity, the PR campaignes, the costs, the hangers on (FOAK), unfortunatly these probably forced Amanda down a path she might not necessarily have taken, and I cannot see any closure on this case for a very long time, if ever, for anyone.
Wattle Watcher said

am February 4 2010 @ 6:05 pm

I’ve finally found a photo that rivals the air-brushed/30 years out-of-date “glamour shot” that Anne Bremner uses.

Candass Dumpsay has put up a photo on her webpage that is not only taken from 20 feet away with a soft focus, but squished in from the sides to create a thinning effect!

I’ve seen the UK documentary, Candy – you can’t keep that up – the eye bags, jowls, big nose and even bigger wattle are plain as day.

Fudging your graduation dates to suggest you’re under 40 doesn’t do anything to erase the 60 years on your face and neck!

I wonder why she is so comfortable with misrepresentation…

It’s an asset, though, when working for “The Friends of Amanda” PR machine.
Enzo Zoff said

am February 4 2010 @ 6:07 pm

@PhanuelB said:

Reliable sources?

Doug Preston, Tim egan, CNN, NYT – and don’t forget;

Mr & MRs Knox, Amanda’s uncle and aunty, Janet Bremner, and Ciolino of 48hours !!!!

well, that pretty well does it for me! I’ve just seen the light … Amanda is innocent !

finally, I can get on with living !

dixi
jiminy said

am February 4 2010 @ 6:11 pm

PallusB said

CNN and the NY Times are reliable sources.
————————————–

CNN didn’t say that, Doofus Doug did.

The NYT bit was an OPINION piece by Egan (a Seattle-based member of Amanda’s PR team).

Do you grasp the difference between fact-based reporting & op-ed pieces?

Is everyone in Grafton as dumb as you are?
Keioni said

am February 4 2010 @ 6:11 pm

OK, guys, I’m 15 and a high school student in Oklahoma. My grandma talks about this case and got me interested. I have some questions but I’m not sure how to ask them because most of you can be a little, well more than a little, rude.

Really, can I ask Ivsititia some questions and not get snapped at?

Does the Superior Counsel have any control about Mignini? Do they have any control over any prosecutor?

I wonder because from what you wrote I got the idea that no one in Italy has any control over these guys. I don’t mean exactly that, but do they have to answer to anybody or tell reasons for whatever they do? Can’t they become like the leader of the town, higher and stronger than anybody else? I guess I don’t get it.
Kim Bailey said

am February 4 2010 @ 6:22 pm

@PhanuelB, If you want to talk about Preston why don’t you go and start a new thread. This one is for the Kercher case, and that ignorant funding for Knox.

Before you go one thing you forgot to mention that Preston said, “my phone rang it was the Italian police. They said ‘where are you? we are coming to get you now’” If you believe that any police would call someone and warn him that they are coming to get him for murder, then it is no wonder you believe Knox is innocent. Preston would say anything to get his face on camera and to sell another book.
Al-Fakh Yugoudh said

am February 4 2010 @ 6:27 pm

Mario Spezi is a worthless reporter at La Nazione of Florence during the early ’80s. Spezi became fascinated by the Monster because it gave him a chance to become famous.

Florence has very little violent crime (even less in those years). The monsters, by killing a couple each summer, practically doubled the murder rate of Florence for the entire year and that was a chance for him to gain notoriety.

Spezi came up with his theory of a lone killer, because that fits the imagination of most, since most serial killers are lone wolves. But there were 3 of them (at least), all convicted and now dead. One of them confessed, gave very specific details, and implicated the other two (who never cooperated with the authorities).

Another one, Pacciani, the first one of the three arrested, had killed before, in 1951 at the age of 26. He had caught his 14 y.o. girlfriend (that would be illegal in Wash. state, but not in Italy where the age of consent is 14) having sex inside a car with another guy (the other guy was 41 y.o., this is also illegal in Wash. state, but not in Italy since the age of consent is 14). Pacciani got mad and got inside the car and killed the 41 y.o. guy. (This is illegal also in Italy) And since he wasn’t too happy with his girlfriend either, he decided to rape her next to the corpse of the other guy (This is also illegal in Italy, in spite of the age of consent being 14).

Pacciani spent 13 years in prison for this crime committed in 1951.

He was arrested in Mercatale, near Florence, after several witnesses saw him near the crime scenes. The police found in his garden a bullet from the same pistol (beretta22) used in all MOF crimes. During the trial in the 1990’s his wife and daughters testify that over the years he had raped both wife and his two daughters multiple times, often using zucchini and other vegetables.

The above Mr. Pacciani, and his 2 friends, according to Spezi were not the monsters. Yet one of the 3 friends confessed and gave details that nobody else could know. He also confessed in court that there were people “very up high” who were commissioning those crimes and purchasing the body parts ablated from the female victims. He never had the courage to make names. The police also noticed large deposits of money in these three monsters’ bank accounts, although all of them had very modest means. One was a farmer (Pacciani), one was a mail carrier (he took the term going postal to the extreme) and one I don’t remember.

Doug Preston believed Spezi’s theory of a lone wolf, and that those 3 were innocent. Then explain to me the detailed confession of one of the 3, the bullet in the garden of another, and the witnesses who saw Pacciani near one of the crime scenes holding a gun once and getting on his moped near the crime scene of another of the MOF murder. And one of the witnesses knew him since he was from the same little town.

There were also anonymous letters sent to the police that there were satanic rituals being held, which required the use of a woman’s vagina ablated from women killed in the act of making love during a full moon night (yes the killings happened that way).

So, were the investigators wrong and Spezi right? Well, obviously the courts and the supreme court agreed with the investigators and not with Spezi.
Al-Fakh Yugoudh said

am February 4 2010 @ 7:09 pm

hillybillyryan wrote this to me:

“having cried yourself to sleep for years over been too young to have joined the varteen ss this case is allowing you to live out your fantasies.”

Could any of you be so kind to translate the above for me in an understandable language? English, Italian, Spanish and French will do.

Thank you.
Mary H. said

am February 4 2010 @ 7:38 pm

Enzo, when you responded to my post, why didn’t you use the example of discrediting the Italian justice system, instead of coming up with a new example that I didn’t use?

I’m not sure whether you were trying to actually respond to my post or to change the subject. Your original complaint was that I was trying to discredit the Italian justice systems AS IF the American justice system is problem-free. I explained to you that the AS IF wasn’t relevant.

When you changed the example to the subject of the jury not being sequestered, you chose an entirely different type of claim. You state that when someone claims the jury was not sequestered, they are saying that their message is “….the Italian juries are manipulated, unreliable, easily influenced, irresponsible etc, and as a CAUSE she is in jail.”?

I’ll gladly give you that one — that is very similar to the implied/intended message behind the claim that the jury was not sequestered.

But for you to say I am trying to discredit the Italian justice system AS IF the American justice system is problem-free, well, that’s quite a leap. My message is not hidden or implied; it is not related to anything other than that the Italian justice system has problems. You could have easily claimed that I am trying to discredit the Italian justice system AS IF I have a degree in international law.

When you try to read meaning into a person’s claim and then argue that their claim is invalid because of the meaning you have read into it, it’s called a Straw Man argument. As if you didn’t know.

Stay focused, man!
Mary H. said

am February 4 2010 @ 7:39 pm

Kim, have you found out about the mop and bucket, yet?
John Winters said

am February 4 2010 @ 7:40 pm

Al wants a tranny……..

”aving a cried yoself to slip forrr a manny years a and a been a too yung a forrr joinin thee waffen SS
this a kise a cann a elp fulfil a yo fantasees about a
young a girls uh uh? uh?”

Hows that?
Mary H. said

am February 4 2010 @ 7:51 pm

Ivstitia, I also don’t have much time at the moment, but I wanted to quickly reposnd to your post about public opinion.

You wrote: “But also these types of interference and criticism always makes people become very nationalistic. It’s one thing to debate the evidence, it’s another to trash the entire Italian institutions. The same thing would happen if a foreign nation and their officials started criticizing the US institutions.”

An inherent aspect of this case is that we cannot debate the evidence without discussing the Italian legal system, because it was within its structure that Mignin was able to get away with everrything he has (almost) gotten away with.

That said, I do agree with you, it would be better to stay focused on matters that are not about trashing other countries’ populations.

On the other hand, it has been common in modern history for politicians to bow to the outside pressure of popular disapproval. I imagine the hope of, say, a boycott, is that if the Italians don’t want the Americans (and others) hating them for unjustly imprisoning Amanda and Raffaele, they will let their leaders know. Mignini may be immune to interference from many of his superiors, but he can’t be immune to interference from all of them.
The Amanda Knox Corporation. said

am February 4 2010 @ 8:01 pm

Matthew McCarthy says:

”It’s ironic anyone who thinks Knox was falsely accused overlooks the fact that she falsely accused her employer – Patrick Lumumba – of the murder. He was jailed for 2 weeks, but I guess he’s not cute enough for anyone to care about.
The court ordered Knox to pay him $60,000 – that’s where the funds raised should go.”

No these funds are going towards costs of expensive attorneys and so on. Then after Amanda’s appeal and release, the money from the book and the film, and the film of the book, and the film sequel that just about makes it, and the third sequel that bombs, together with sales of ‘Amanda dolls,’ ‘Amanda sex toys’ etc. will be kept in a slush fund for Amanda’s future while at the same time she will be declared bankrupt until the heats off.
Gary said

am February 4 2010 @ 8:09 pm

Al-Fakh Yugoudh
I see you had nothing to say about my last comment and I’m assuming that’s because you know I’m correct. Do you believe that freaky Magini should be allowed to keep his job after planting evidence? How do you know that he did not plant evidence against Amanda? (Not that there is any that proves her guilty except his forced confession.) I can guarantee that freak planted evidence in her case and I also believe that he used the media to demonize her. Where are you from? Let me guess Italy. When are you going to face the fact that Magini planted evidence and that he made up almost all of what he presented in court. When are you going to realize that the freak is obsessed with satanic rituals? Why has he used this theory in more than one of his cases and why was his found guilty of planting evidence and many other wrong doings when it came to his job? Tell me would you want this freak prosecuting you in a murder trial? I bet not. Well I hope someday you fall victim to this freaks web of lies and that he puts you away for the rest of your life when you are innocent. What will be your opinion of him then? Let’s see!!! I suppose you will still find him to be one of the greatest and upstanding people in the world. I hope that doesn’t happen to you, but if it does and you are put away for life for a crime you didn’t commit then it will serve you right for all the great things you said about him. What you going to be saying when you go to trial and all this false evidence starts coming out that was fabricated and planted by the freak against you? You are in a fantasy world and it seems to me that you are related to Magini. As far as you saying that Gueda took good legal advice and that’s why his sentence was cut in half is total craziness because this man knows that he is guilty and Amanda and Solechito know that they are innocent. So what you are saying is they should have lied and said they were involved so that they would spend less time in prison for crimes they did not commit. Your reasoning is totally off the wall and you need to recheck you’re self. Well good luck in your fantasy world and I’ll be looking forward to the day that I can say Ha Ha to you when Amanda and Solchito are exonerated. I will bet my life that they will be exonerated in the end and you know they will too. See you when I can tell you I told you so.
John Winters said

am February 4 2010 @ 8:20 pm

colonel says:

”John Winters – people seem to be avers to your powers of reasoning. Here’s my tip for you – Try to be pleasant for a change. Even Mary can do that!……

….quite literally just 4 posts after his friend Al Fakh Youdoug has said:

”Amanda is guilty like sin! And so is Raffaele. They’re two coke heads drug addict killers. Nobody needs scum like that walking in the streets. Let them rot in jail.”

Very pleasant!
John Winters said

am February 4 2010 @ 8:27 pm

Al Fakhyourdog says:

”There were also anonymous letters sent to the police that there were satanic rituals being held, which required the use of a woman’s vagina ablated from women killed in the act of making love during a full moon night (yes the killings happened that way).”

”Ablated?”

What the hell do you mean by that!!?
Mary H. said

am February 4 2010 @ 8:39 pm

Could you guys please not talk about this? Thank you.
Al-Fakh Yugoudh said

am February 4 2010 @ 9:18 pm

Joint Sphyncters:

You obviously are not too well versed with surgical terms. Only people who work in health care like me or serial killers like the MOF or Raffaele would know the meaning of ablation.

Ablate (ablation) refers to the surgical removal of an organ, body part, appendix or whatever.

The Monsters of Florence (or maybe a doctor who some people still suspect was with them, probably Narducci) used to kill the couples having sex in the car at night in the countryside around Florence, then, after they killed them they would ‘ablate’ (=surgically remove) the woman’s left breast and the entire vaginal area. According to the confession of one of the 3 convicted, and according to some anonymous letters received by investigators, these body parts were used by some group of sick puppies for some stupid satanic rituals. Maybe they ate that stuff thinking it was an aphrodisiac or something. Anyway, that is what Mignini and Giuttari wanted to further investigate when Dr. Narducci was found in the lake. But the big chief prosecutors in Florence put all kind of obstacles on their effort to further inquire into that lead. Florentines (including me) speculate that among those crazy puppies there might have been some politician or someone “really up high”, like the self confessed Monster (Giancarlo Lotti) said in court.

Anyway Mignini and Giuttari (the chief of mobile squad in Florence who was also indicted with Mignini) weren’t too happy about those people telling them to keep hush and let go of that new lead and so that’s probably why they decided to wiretap the chief of police and some other people who tried to stop the investigation (including some journalists). Maybe they wanted to see who was behind the whole story who was trying to bury the investigation on the senders of the monsters (the sick puppies).

Now, John, don’t spread rumors that Berlusconi might have been part of that sect. He’ll sue you for defamation if you do. Ok?

Anyway. I’ll stop here otherwise Mary H. will be totally grossed out.
Paul K said

am February 4 2010 @ 9:28 pm

There’s something pretty tragic about reading the posts on this site, a lot of very strongly-held anti-Knox family views and tragically little compromise. The Knox family are, I suspect, behaving exactly how many of us would if placed in a similar situation. I don’t agree with their stance but I feel sorry for them. I’m from Britain and maybe have a slightly more detached view than those from Seattle or Perugia, but I think it’s crystal-clear that there was sufficient evidence to convict Amanda. The Italian legal system does, of course, have its flaws but also has a comforting amount of decomcratic process inbuilt, and the appeal process is comprehensive and thorough. Logic, precedent (and lobbying for early release) dictates that the truth will soon surface in a case involving three convicted prisoners. Sollecito is already displaying ‘mental health problems’ in relation to his incarnation and this is an interesting twist. The Italian legal system also has compassion inbuilt (unlike the American system, but we won’t go there!) and a full confession from him would open the prison gates sooner and release a floodgate of truth from all involved. Anyway, I got a bit sidetracked there. The real reason I’m posting was to voice my utter, utter amazement that anybody could be so socially inept, ignorant and insensitive as to host a ‘comedy night’ in such circumstances. Staggeringly bad taste, despite the fact there were ‘no jokes about the Kercher family or Italy’. Jesus wept.
Enzo Zoff said

am February 4 2010 @ 11:00 pm

@Mary H, Candance or whatever:

You say:
‘Enzo, when you responded to my post, why didn’t you use the example of discrediting the Italian justice system, instead of coming up with a new example that I didn’t use?’

because, MaryH, I was trying to keep it simple for you!

I must apologise to you; my take on you was that you were a slippery, cunning, obnoxious sophist stalling every piece of worthwhile commentary and genarally causing havoc with every blog on Knox.But after careful review, I am know pretty much convinced that you’re simply a sandwich short of a picnic lunch.

I thought that as a FOA puppet your sole objective was to distort, manipulate, distract and confuse posts.But, lo, you ACTUALLY believe your own crap! In your mind, and your mind only, you’re a legend! Like you ACTUALLY believe that your dribble will make a difference to K/S’s outcome. Does Amanda know this?

Get this: arguably, 3 of the best criminal lawyers were representing K/S; S is italian; his father an influential doctor, S’s siter was a lieutanant in the italian police force; 2 US embassy officials present; dozens of international journalists; daily media scrutiny; expert legal opinions; 19 different judges; 104 pages of judgement – and in all of this, wait for it, everyone missed what Mignini got away with ?

Except, Mary H who is now going to tell us within the context of the failings of the italian legal system, what Mignini did or didn’t do in ANOTHER case, years ago. WAS there a miniscule of allegation of an abuse of office in Knox’s case?

NO!

WAS there any complaint lodged or even voiced by the defence attorneys?

NO!

IS there any RELEVANCE to the Knox case?

NO!

But none of this will stop MAry H from spinning her weave of crap. It won’t matter how many times in clear simple language you point this out to her she will like a 3 year old soil her nappies and then cry when you try to clean her up.
In summary, an ‘infantile’s will to power’ is our MAry H.

Stay focused, with you?

No thanks, I’ll opt for the 3 year old; there ‘hope’ lies.

dixi
jim said

am February 4 2010 @ 11:32 pm

Enzoff or rather pissoff, i read judge michel report that subjected amanda to the trial. my facts are based on it, not some reporter or columnist. hey mr, enzoff ignorant dicks like u will never get it…. she is proven a murderer . i dont love or support murderer. i am not her hater but i believe in justice for that poor victim. you are just an ignorant asshole for telling me to leave becuz u cant take the truth. anyone whoever supports that amanda , the white trash has her blood on their hand. she is proven guilty by a a civilzed court with 20 judges who looked at the case over 2 yrs. u get it. u get the f out the blog asshole, killer supporeter!
jim said

am February 4 2010 @ 11:58 pm

del balzo, why shuld i discredit italian court, its part of european union. its not some third world court . do u believe in american court system AS ALL FAIR where judges are elected buy politicians . in italy judges are selected by the supreme judicial council, not by the government like in US.there is more corruption in american court system,why do u believe in their verdicts in cases like oj simpson, scott peterson and so forth?
jim said

am February 5 2010 @ 12:01 am

mary H I READ THIS CASE FROM JUDGE MICHELI report, not some reporters. u are just ignoring the facts just to make urself believe what u want to believe.go read judge micheli report, this is the judge who subjected her to the trial. she is guilty for sure and will rot in that hole forever
Mary H. said

am February 5 2010 @ 2:15 am

I have a couple of (sincere) questions for the Italian speakers about Judge Micheli’s report. First, I have looked through some parts of it, and it seems to me to be mostly directed at Rudy Guede. Am I looking at the wrong report? Where in there does it actually spell out the parts Amanda and Raffaele allegedly played in the murder?

This is the one I have been looking at:

http://www.penale.it/page.asp?mode=1&IDPag=750

Second, there has been a widely publicized quote from the report to the effect that the judge said “someone opened the door to Rudy Guede and that person could only have been Amanda Knox.” But from the translation I was reading, it seemed more like the judge said “someone opened the door to Rudy Guede and that person could not have been Meredith Kercher.”

How do you know when K. stands for Kercher and when it stands for Knox?

Thank you for your assistance!
colonelhall said

am February 5 2010 @ 2:41 am

Paul K – thank you for your contribution a welcome piece of sanity here!
Mary H. said

am February 5 2010 @ 3:32 am

Enzo wrote: “Get this: arguably, 3 of the best criminal lawyers were representing K/S; S is italian; his father an influential doctor, S’s siter was a lieutanant in the italian police force; 2 US embassy officials present; dozens of international journalists; daily media scrutiny; expert legal opinions; 19 different judges; 104 pages of judgement – and in all of this, wait for it, everyone missed what Mignini got away with?”

Current number of people Mignini is suing or investigating for acts of speech:

Eleven

http://knoxarchives.blogspot.com/
Jeff L. said

am February 5 2010 @ 3:45 am

Mary H. said:

I have a couple of (sincere) questions for the Italian speakers about Judge Micheli’s report. First, I have looked through some parts of it, and it seems to me to be mostly directed at Rudy Guede. Am I looking at the wrong report?
—————————————-

The “report” you refer to is the ratio of Judge Micheli that sentenced Rudy Guede to 30 years.

It flowed from Rudy’s “fast-track” trial by judge alone. Hence, its focus on Rudy, rather than Amanda & Raffaele.

In contrast to their accomplice Rudy, Amanda & Raffaele elected trial by jury, a much more elaborate/ time-consuming process that ended in December.

The ratio of the court will be published this spring.

Now I’d like to ask you something, Mary H: Why did you pose this question when you are already so familiar with the answer?

Do you ever wonder if there really is a God? One that sees what you are doing to undermine justice for Meredith?

I do.
Jeff L. said

am February 5 2010 @ 3:51 am

Mary H said:

…Mignini is suing or investigating for acts of speech,,,

_____________________________

you mean ILLEGAL acts of speech

a/k/a slander

read the Italian criminal code

another poster already gave you translations of the relevant provisions
Enzo Zoff said

am February 5 2010 @ 5:27 am

@Mary H:

as usual and so typical, and more of the same crap and dribble ….

but this is embarrassing even for me ..

Mary H, it’s Mignini who is suing others – he is the plaintiff not the defendant !

Mary H: very s_l_o_w_l_y … if he was in the wrong as you claim, if indeed he is the criminal that you allege he is and if all the other accusations which have been propelled at him are true it would be other people suing him !

Capisci ?

And a person usually initiates a civil action in defamation when in his mind at least, the person feels he has been defamed in some form by someone ELSE !!!

All you have done is PROVE my point !

I have no opinion as to the veracity of his claims but it does indicate to me that he is NOT prepared to take the crap that’s been levelled at him, whatever that crap may be.

Mary H: make that 2 sandwiches shy of a picnic lunch !

Jesus, woman – give it a break for your own good!

dixi
Beth Storvak said

am February 5 2010 @ 5:33 am

Hey Renee, tell it to the Kercher family. Really. You can go on about ‘anonymous bloggers’ and such, who hide behind computers, but it seems that you should really take your arguments to the Kercher family. I’m sure that you can find a way to do that. If you can organize a fundraiser that benefits the woman that was convicted of killing their daughter, then I’m sure that you can arrange some kind of message or meeting directly to the family of Meredith Kercher. If you can’t, then really, you’re no better than any of these ‘anonymous bloggers’. Let us know how that goes once you’ve contacted Meredith’s family.
Mary H. said

am February 5 2010 @ 5:49 am

Wow. That’s incredible.

My point was that he investigates or sues people who speak out against him. Hence, it is unlikely that people will speak out against him, even if they disagree with him.

I think you mean drivel, not dribble.
Enzo Zoff said

am February 5 2010 @ 5:50 am

@jim:

ok buddy, please, calm down.

Please, would you read my post in reply to your post again. Please?

You will find that I ABSOLUTELY AGREE with you 100%, and with your other posts too.

I’m assuming that perhaps that english is not your ‘mother-tongue’ and my silly attempt at being ‘funny’ in phrasing it this way, obviously back-fired.

Sorry, for this.

take care,

dixi
Enzo Zoff said

am February 5 2010 @ 6:05 am

@Mary H:

that is really bad form even for you !

I genuinely and sincerely mean that – but, in you way and by your own hand you demonstrate the lengths and breadths of lies, crap and distortions you are willing to go to win a point.

Again, providing evidence to my recent posts.

“My point was that he investigates or sues people who speak out against him. Hence, it is unlikely that people will speak out against him, even if they disagree with him.”

Litigants don’t commence defamation suits because someone has dis-ageed with them; they commence litigation because what has been said about them is totally untrue and is likely to damage, inter-alia, their reputation , idiot!

And no, I DON’T mean drivel, I mean DRIBBLE, like the saliva that leaks from a 3 year old, which you well know.

dixi
billyryan said

am February 5 2010 @ 9:04 am

if i though amanda knox was guilty i would say how sad for her and her family after they done their best for her and leave it at that.The reason i post here is because i know she has been wrongly accused and falsey convicted.Thank you paul k for your excellent posts.mignini is now suing or investigation eleven people in several office in italy today this monster is been discussed .I bet none of these people have any bother believing amanda is innocent.lets go back to the killer of young couples around florence.Mignini was known to have been in the area,there is grave doubt the killer was ever caught,the bodys of the young women were desecrated,the killer had some fixation with young girls who had made love and setanic rituals.Now in perugia a young girl that had made love and setanic rituals are again part of the story. Just mabey the monster of florence and the monster of perugia are the same man.Would al_dogshite and his pupets ever go get involved in some other cause other than keeping an innocent girl in jail
John Winters said

am February 5 2010 @ 11:10 am

Mary H. on Micheli:

”Where in there does it actually spell out the parts Amanda and Raffaele allegedly played in the murder?”

I had to smile when I saw this. I have this theory that Micheli is actually the one who is fixated with Amanda Knox. The ‘logic’ of his ‘rationale’ for chrissake, ‘rationale’ of all terms to choose to describe a written account of the confused and veritably anti-rational state of his mind.

He suggests at one point for example, that Knox is the person who does the altering of the scene in order to change it so that there is an apparent sexual motive for the attack.

There is an absurd contradiction here. The assumption that Knox did the altering is then necessarily precluded by the fact that she was present at the killing and therefore must have been witness to the purely sexual motive for its occurrence. Why would she then go to the trouble of altering a scene which she was already aware contained evidence of sexual activity, to look like a crimescene which contains evidence of sexual activity?
colonelhall said

am February 5 2010 @ 12:23 pm

“the confused and veritably anti-rational state of his mind.”

There you go again Johnny, just lashing out at people. Do you know Micheli? Have you read the report? Can you provide any evidence that testifies to his state of mind?

Even if you are the most ardent of Amanda Knox admirers, you must agree that her response to the murder has been questionable. The contrast between what she doesn’t remember and what she remembers clearly, for instance. The change of alibi and the incredible story about being at the scene of the crime ( which, if not true, is a weird story to make up ) would put her number one in any policeman’s suspect list. The antics at the police station, the apparent distrust of her flat mates, all earn her a lot of attention and suspicion.

You expect people to believe in her innocence and believe that a judge is crazy, just because you say so. It doesn’t wash!
ifyourinterested said

am February 5 2010 @ 12:52 pm

http://viewfromwilmington.blogspot.com/2010/01/meredith-kerchers-bra-clasp.html

also a link in one of the articles to a translation of the micheli report
ifyourinterested said

am February 5 2010 @ 12:59 pm

“Here is a link to the testimony of Professor Adriano Tagliabracci, director of the Forensic Institute of Ancona and president of the Italian Association of Forensic Genetics, who testified for the defense:

http://abcnews.go.com/International/US/story?id=8118652

“‘The clasp goes from one scientist to another, and we don’t see gloves being changed. We then see it being put on the floor and picked up again. These procedures are all wrong,’ Tagliabracci testified.
‘By not changing gloves and by touching other objects, cross-contamination of DNA is highly possible,” he said.”

from the “viewfromwilmington.blogspot
Beware the spin from "PhanuelB" said

am February 5 2010 @ 1:26 pm

“PhanuelB” is just another dunce from Grafton.

Amanda’s “celebrity” has attracted yet another lonely, unemployed nut-case that fantasizes about a relationship with her.

He just regurgitates the talking points put out by the “Friends of Amanda” PR campaign.

At the rate he’s posting, he’ll soon be surpassing the work product of the bloggers hired by the Marriott firm to spin for Amanda.
beware the spin? said

am February 5 2010 @ 2:52 pm

there is only so much info out there and only so many ways to write about it. by now almost all of you are in repeat mode. i see you on the various blog sites and you’re all pete/repetes, multiple do overs and let’s see if you get it this timers.
where oh where? said

am February 5 2010 @ 3:28 pm

I’ve looked all over the internet and have seen no scientists or forensics experts who have written anything in support of “the knife” or bra clasp DNA evidence. Well, let me clarify that, no scientists or forensics experts who aren’t involved in the prosecution or who are willing to present their names and credentials. I have seen several who dispute or question “the knife” or the clasp DNA evidence.

Could any of you please direct me to where I can find experts who do support this DNA evidence outside, of course, anyone who has to do with the prosecution or the civil cases?
Mary H. said

am February 5 2010 @ 4:08 pm

Thanks for the links, ifyourinterested. I will check them out.
Gary said

am February 5 2010 @ 4:28 pm

All I can say anymore about this case is that we now have a convicted prosecutor who has been sentenced to prison yet he is still allowed to prosecute cases during his appeal. In the United States this would not only have caused every case that he prosecuted to be re-examined he would have been let go from his job. He definitely would not have been allowed to prosecute a murder case of this magnitude. It’s not like Magini was found guilty of driving without a license or some other penny crime; he was found guilty of abusing his job (Illegal wire tapping, false confessions, planting evidence, etc.). Well this is the best thing that could have happened because now his credibility is ruined and his testimony will be unbelievable. Amanda and Raffaelle will be free by the end of the summer and that freak will then be sitting behind bars. Can’t wait to know he’s sitting in a jail cell (Let him know what it feels like.) I am not defending Amanda because she’s an American, but because I know in my heart that she is innocent. I also believe that she was railroaded by that freak Magini. This man has no right to be prosecuting a murder case let alone any other cases. The evidence was made up, planted and coerced by a deranged prosecutor who is getting old and needed a huge win to finish his carrier with a bang. Unfortunately for the freak he has now been found guilty and will be finishing his carrier in a prison cell. The best part of it all is that that Amanda and Rafaelle will go home as free people mainly due to Magini being found guilty of planting evidence etc. Even though there was no real evidence to convict them to begin with and the fact that we know how the Italian justice system works there should be no reason in the world why these convictions should not be overturned unless the Italian government has no regards for what’s wrong from wright or just because they want the American Girl to sit in jail for the rest of her natural life.
PhanuelB said

am February 5 2010 @ 5:09 pm

@somebody:”“PhanuelB” is just another dunce from Grafton.

Amanda’s “celebrity” has attracted yet another lonely, unemployed nut-case that fantasizes about a relationship with her.”

Every word of that is a lie. And how would you know anyway? It’s just a Mignini-like fabrication.

I’m in it because I see hate and irrational hysteria and I think it’s the right time and place to confront it . I care about our schools and colleges and I will not stand by and watch as a broken justice system and a bunch of hate mongers interfere with two innocent young people’s lives.
Al-Fakh Yugoudh said

am February 5 2010 @ 5:15 pm

PhallusB: “I care about our schools and colleges and I will not stand by and watch as a broken justice system and a bunch of hate mongers interfere with two innocent young people’s lives.”

Are you sure you aren’t a school children stalker?

And by the way, Amanda and Raffaele ain’t innocent. They are two coke head murderers.
where oh where? said

am February 5 2010 @ 5:17 pm

Could any of you please direct me to where I can find experts who do support the DNA evidence for the knife and bra clasp outside, of course, anyone who has to do with the prosecution or the civil cases?

I’m still waiting.
Al-Fakh Yugoudh said

am February 5 2010 @ 5:17 pm

Gary said
am February 5 2010 @ 4:28 pm

All I can say anymore about this case is that we now have a convicted prosecutor who has been sentenced to prison yet he is still allowed to prosecute cases during his appeal.

DIDN’T YOU HEAR THAT ACCORDING TO THE ITALIAN CONSTITUTION YOU’RE INNOCENT UNTIL CONVICTED AFTER ALL APPEALS HAVE BEEN EXHAUSTED?

MIGNINI IS INNOCENT.
Mary H. said

am February 5 2010 @ 5:21 pm

Al, I’m watching you.
Al-Fakh Yugoudh said

am February 5 2010 @ 5:23 pm

JOHNNY SAD: There is an absurd contradiction here. The assumption that Knox did the altering is then necessarily precluded by the fact that she was present at the killing and therefore must have been witness to the purely sexual motive for its occurrence. Why would she then go to the trouble of altering a scene which she was already aware contained evidence of sexual activity, to look like a crimescene which contains evidence of sexual activity?

BECAUSE RUDY IS THE ONE TELLING THE TRUTH.

HE WAS IN THE BATHROOM AND MEREDITH WAS IN HER BEDROOM.

THEN RAF ARRIVED AND KILLED HER AND RUDY CAME OUT OF THE BATHROOM. SCUFFLED WITH RAF THEN TRIED TO HELP MEZ.
HE ESCAPED OUT OF FEAR, POOR THING!

THEN AMANDA AND RAF CAME BACK AND ALTERED THE SCENE TO MAKE IT SEEM RUDY HAD DONE IT DURING A RAPE.

RUDY IS INNOCENT! FREE HIM

AMANDA TELL THE TRUTH! YOUR BOYFRIEND KILLED MEZ AND YOU HELPED HIM.

MURDERER!
Where oh where? said

am February 5 2010 @ 5:24 pm

To Al-fakh:
Could you answer my question below? I’ve been searching but can’t find any. Thanks in advance.

“Could any of you please direct me to where I can find experts who do support the DNA evidence for the knife and bra clasp outside, of course, anyone who has to do with the prosecution or the civil cases?”
Al-Fakh Yugoudh said

am February 5 2010 @ 5:24 pm

MARY HO.
GO BACK TO THE EXAMINER. I’M BUSY HERE.

I OFFERED YOU SOME NOOKIE SINCE YOU’RE PROBABLY KIND OF UGLY AND FAT AND NOBODY WANTS YOU. BUT YOU WEREN’T WILLING.

GO WITH JOHN WINTERS.
Al-Fakh Yugoudh said

am February 5 2010 @ 5:28 pm

“Could any of you please direct me to where I can find experts who do support the DNA evidence for the knife and bra clasp outside, of course, anyone who has to do with the prosecution or the civil cases?”

ASK DOUG PRESTON! HE KNOWS EVERYTHING (NOT).
colonelhall said

am February 5 2010 @ 5:41 pm

Let’s stop all the insults kids. Just look at the evidence. Let’s stop defaming the prosecutor. He is facing a suspended sentence (subject to appeal) and is still allowed to do his job. he was not the only prosecutor. The post by Gary is ridiculous. You can go on calling the prosecutor names, you can go on saying that he is deranged, you can go saying that the evidence was manipulated, but saying it does not mean that it is true.
This was a long trial, the defence did their best, but were unable to make a case that convinced the jury. There were no accusations of foul play on the side of the prosecution.

The only foul play in this case came from the Sollecito family. The sister lost her job because of it and they will be facing their own trial, which has been delayed until April.
Where oh where? said

am February 5 2010 @ 5:46 pm

“Could any of you please direct me to where I can find experts who do support the DNA evidence for the knife and bra clasp outside, of course, anyone who has “nothing” to do with the prosecution or the civil cases?”

Darn, left out the “nothing” earlier.

But Al, I was asking nicely and saying thank you. I really would like to read a positive report by any expert on the knife and bra clasp DNA. I’ve read several who don’t support the findings and I would like a counter balance. Really.
PhanuelB said

am February 5 2010 @ 5:58 pm

Have the anti-Amanda trolls no shame?

@FukU:”I OFFERED YOU SOME NOOKIE SINCE YOU’RE PROBABLY KIND OF UGLY AND FAT AND NOBODY WANTS YOU. BUT YOU WEREN’T WILLING.”

@FukU:”Are you sure you aren’t a school children stalker?”

@Candy’s Jowls Make Sick
@Candy’s Nixon-Nose
@Candy’s Eye Bags

“You’ll see the lisping “Mary H” – just look for the old chick sporting the Nixon nose & jowls over a massive wattle.”

@Jiminy:”One look at the food blogger and you will realize that, in addition to abnormal nose length, lying can also cause the following to develop:

Nixon-like jowls;
Massive neck whattle;
Lisping; &
Inability to Reason.”

@wattle Watcher:”I’ve finally found a photo that rivals the air-brushed/30 years out-of-date “glamour shot” that Anne Bremner uses.

Candass Dumpsay has put up a photo on her webpage that is not only taken from 20 feet away with a soft focus, but squished in from the sides to create a thinning effect!

I’ve seen the UK documentary, Candy – you can’t keep that up – the eye bags, jowls, big nose and even bigger wattle are plain as day.

Fudging your graduation dates to suggest you’re under 40 doesn’t do anything to erase the 60 years on your face and neck!”
Al-Fakh Yugoudh said

am February 5 2010 @ 6:16 pm

Hey PhallusB:
Since you are always asking for original trial info, I have something for you.
It’s Nara Capezzali’s phone number. You know! The lady across the street who heard the noise and the people go up the metal stairs next to her apartment.

She’s actually listed in the Perugia directory. Here you go:

Capezzali Nara
Via Del Melo, 26
06122 Perugia (PG)
tel: + 39 075 5720032

Don’t forget to dial 011 (US International call no.) before the number. Ok?

She doesn’t speak English though, but try Google translate when she tells you what she heard.
John Winters said

am February 5 2010 @ 6:42 pm

AlFhakncrackupsoon says:

”HE (RUDY) WAS IN THE BATHROOM AND MEREDITH WAS IN HER BEDROOM.
THEN RAF ARRIVED AND KILLED HER AND RUDY CAME OUT OF THE BATHROOM. SCUFFLED WITH RAF THEN TRIED TO HELP MEZ.
HE (RUDY) ESCAPED OUT OF FEAR, POOR THING!
THEN AMANDA AND RAF CAME BACK AND ALTERED THE SCENE TO MAKE IT SEEM RUDY HAD DONE IT DURING A RAPE.”

Right, I’ve got that statement recorded so that I can quote from it later when I have to prove to people that you have lost touch with reality and need help understanding simple concepts.

P.S. My original argument was set in the context of the crimescene as Micheli saw and described it. This version precludes the possibility that Guede could be regarded as innocent of involvement in the actual murder.
billyryan said

am February 5 2010 @ 6:42 pm

al_fake_dogshite you are not a man you are a dog
John Winters said

am February 5 2010 @ 6:54 pm

I’d just like to correct colonelhall’s last post a tad if I may:

Let’s stop all the insults kids. Just look at the evidence. Let’s stop defaming Amanda Knox. She is facing a 26 year sentence (subject to appeal) and is not allowed to do her job. And she was not the only one wrongly convicted. The post by AlFhakYou is ridiculous. You can go on calling Amanda names, you can go on saying that she is a deranged murderer, you can go saying that the evidence was not manipulated, but saying it does not mean that it is true.
This was a long trial, the prosecution did their best, and to global astonishment, were able to make a case that convinced the jury. Subsequently, there have been accusations of foul play on the side of the prosecution coming out of everyone’s ears. Even the Florentines have joined in.

The only foul play in this case came from the Mignini team. Despite global incredulity, he hasn’t lost his job though he will be facing another barrage of attacks when his case comes to appeal sometime in the future which can’t be soon enough for this writer.
Al-Fakh Yugoudh said

am February 5 2010 @ 6:59 pm

Joint Whiners:

That’s Micheli’s interpretation of the events.

I’ve come to the conclusion that Rudy may actually be the only one telling the truth, or at least something close to the truth.

Raffaele and Amanda killed Meredith. I’m not sure of the exact sequence of events, if Amanda was staying outside in the kitchen or even outside in the porch or if she was with him, but I think that Raffaele was certainly involved.

If Rudy was involved, then it was an attempt by Raffaele and Rudy to group rape her, maybe with the complicity of Amanda, who was probably outside the room giggling over her roommate being raped.

I think the best way to find out would be to send the 3 of them to Guantanamo and waterboard them and interrogate them separately. Of course this wouldn’t be torture, just enhanced interrogation techniques, and everything would be done in accordance with Alterto Gonzales guidelines memo (we don’t torture in the US). In extreme cases, we might send them to Egypt for some outsourced interrogation.

When the 3 of them come up, separately, with the exact same version of the facts, you’ll be assured that is the truth.

These stupid Italians keep insisting on their broken justice system, with 3 levels of judgement and 2 appeals. For what? Just waterboard them! That’s how we deal with justice in America.
Al-Fakh Yugoudh said

am February 5 2010 @ 7:11 pm

HillBillyRyan: even the stupidest dog has way more brain than you do. That’s for sure.
How can you not see that Rudy is telling the truth and that Amanda and Raffaele are guilty.
Oh! I forgot! You’re all a bunch of racist upthere, just like Amanda (the Nazi).
John Winters said

am February 5 2010 @ 7:21 pm

AlFhakupaclas says:

”If Rudy was involved, then it was an attempt by Raffaele and Rudy to group rape her, maybe with the complicity of Amanda, who was probably outside the room giggling over her roommate being raped.”

It is very worrying that anybody could actually believe this scenario is possible having known Amanda and Raffaele for over two years now.
Al-Fakh Yugoudh said

am February 5 2010 @ 7:38 pm

JointSmoking allWinters writes: It is very worrying that anybody could actually believe this scenario is possible having known Amanda and Raffaele for over two years now.”

That’s the most likely scenario. They are two sick puppies.

Two coke heads drug & sex addicts with mental issues.

Let them rot in jail. Those two murderers.
Mary H. said

am February 5 2010 @ 7:43 pm

Al-FY wrote: “Raffaele and Amanda killed Meredith. I’m not sure of the exact sequence of events…”

…but if I lie in bed thinking about it long enough, I’ll come up with something.
Al-Fakh Yugoudh said

am February 5 2010 @ 7:49 pm

You can be as sarcastic as you wish Mary Ho.

In the meantime the murderer stays in jail, and likely, she’ll stay there even after the appeal.

Maybe not 26 years, but much longer than just a couple more years.

PS: Mary you seem a little lonely posting this junk all night. Do you have a man? You need one, you know!
Mary H. said

am February 5 2010 @ 7:56 pm

It’s not even dinnertime in Seattle. And how do you know I’m not a man? I would never reveal my identity on these blogs, what with all the vigilantes. Still interested in that date?
PhanuelB said

am February 5 2010 @ 8:00 pm

@FukU:”PS: Mary you seem a little lonely posting this junk all night. Do you have a man? You need one, you know!”

Maybe comments like this and the one’s I cite above dishonor Meredith. And I’m sorry it’s all coming from the anti-Amanda crowd.
Hector Malloy said

am February 5 2010 @ 8:45 pm

“PS: Mary you seem a little lonely posting this junk all night. Do you have a man? You need one, you know!”

Wow. Someone is lacking self awareness.
jim said

am February 6 2010 @ 12:09 am

enzof, english is my native language, and ur comment that english is not my native language is a very racist one. thats why folks like u support amanda the beast, well i dont know if u know that she is a racist herself, becuz once she passed a racial comment on a jew customer in the cafe she used to work. accordingly she kept on saying and laughing that “my people killed ur people ha ha ha”. there’s also drunk video of amanda in you tube where some one says u dirty jew. so this evil beast is actually a cruel murderer and fundamentally a racist. all evidence points towards her guilt. in the very beginnig i was on her side but after i read the report from judge micheli from italy i changed my views on her. she really is not a murderer but a butcher the way she killed that poor woman. . u will see she will rot in that hole for 26 yrs. its about time that she put hash oil in her hole, f bitch
jim said

am February 6 2010 @ 12:22 am

mary h, i dont know where u get ur source from. i read the judge micheli report the original one and it clearly says that the way meredith was murdered , the number of wounds, and position of her body it cant be only one person but many people at least 3. it talks about among other things eyewitness account of amanda and her boyfriend looking at the cottage from the court yard down below at nite after the murder. this report is an eye opener. i changed my mind about her after i read this report. wht about her jail diary it really is a a admission to her guilt, it says “i experienced no one else experienced so amazing” also ” i wonder how she would have felt when blood was flowing from her, just agony or terror” u are just distorting facts just to protect this sick, evil, charming psycopath, u will see she will be in that hole for 26 yrs and her f mom and that asshole daddy need to get her hash oil in that jail.
Enzo Zoff said

am February 6 2010 @ 1:55 am

@jim;

which part of:

‘I agree with you a 100%’ did you not understand ?

Because, even allowing for the lowest form of wit, sarcasm, you seem to have missed the point.

Now, ‘ I A_G_R_E_E with Y_O_U !!!!!!!

man, take care,

dixi
John Winters said

am February 6 2010 @ 6:15 am

Jim, you’d believe anything you poor gullible fool. The reverence you have for Micheli’s laughable twaddle is pathetic, eliciting Pathos with a capital P from your reader. Go and get yourself half an education before you come back to these blogs to discuss Amanda Knox’s future you servile wimp.
Gary said

am February 6 2010 @ 10:12 am

To;Al-Fakh Yugoudh said

DIDN’T YOU HEAR THAT ACCORDING TO THE ITALIAN CONSTITUTION YOU’RE INNOCENT UNTIL CONVICTED AFTER ALL APPEALS HAVE BEEN EXHAUSTED?
MIGNINI IS INNOCENT.

Oh really. Well then if that’s the case Amanda and Rafaelle are innocent also seeing that all their appeals have not been exhausted yet. The only problem with that is the fact that they are still sitting in prison and freaky is not. In fact that no good freak is still prosecuting cases. I would still love to know if you would have no problem with Magini prosecuting you in a case. Let’s say for instance you were wrongfully accused of a murder and Magini was the prosecutor. Would you be very comfortable with that? Please answer the question even though I already assume you would say yes seeing that you love the man. In all reality you would be scared to death if you had a case pending with this jerk. I would love to know your analogy of how Gueda’s DNA and all the other evidence he left was so clearly visible and was directly tied to being left there when the murder was committed and all the evidence they say was found at the crime scene from Amanda and Rafaelle was not proven to had been left their during the commission of the crime. As far as the knife goes you can put that evidence in the garbage along with the bra clasp seeing that the knife was not the murder weapon and the bra clasp was contaminated beyond belief. If you want to get real technical about the bra clasp there is always the possibility that Meredith and Rafaelle had a little fling at some point and he removed her bra during sex. HUMMMMMMMM now that could never be a possibility seeing that college students do not have sex with their girlfriend’s roommates or friends. You need to get real and start to see the light through the trees.
AMANDA AND RAFAEELE ARE INNOCENT.
IVSTITIA said

am February 6 2010 @ 12:06 pm

Gary: Mr. AFY is actually correct. Art. 27 of the Italian constitution indeed states that a defendant is innocent until found guilty with a definitive sentence, i.e. after the Supreme Court confirms the sentence of the lower courts.

Mignini is therefore innocent, and so are Amanda, Raffaele and even Rudy, since in all those cases the last appeal to the Supreme Court, and therefore the definitive sentence has not occurred.

The reason why AK, RS and RG are sitting in prison, although officially still not found guilty with a definitive sentence, are the same reasons why they were all in sitting in jail even before the trial. The reason is that they were considered a flight risk.

In order to be kept in jail, before a definitive sentence, one or more of the three requirements below must be met:

1. The defendant is a flight risk
2. The defendant, if left free, is in the position to tamper with the evidence.
3. The defendant is a dangerous individual and there is the possibility that s/he might commit another crime if left free.

Rudy, Amanda and Raffaele were kept in prison because no. 1 above was applicable. Maybe they applied even no. 2 but I’m not sure, I don’t remember off hand.

One piece of info you may not know. A few years back there was a major crime case captivating the Italian public opinion. It was known as the Cogne murder from the name of the small alpine town where it occurred. It was a case of a little boy found dead in his house. Apparently his mother was the murderer. During the course of the investigation and throughout the trial, she was left free, in spite of the fact she was found guilty both at the first trial and on appeal. The murder occurred in 2002, the first trial started in 2004 and the appeal ended in 2007. Her guilty sentence was confirmed by the Supreme Court in May 2008, and that’s the time when she finally got arrested and put in prison.

The reason why she wasn’t kept in jail during the trials is because the judge felt that she wasn’t a flight risk, she wasn’t in the position anymore the tamper with the evidence, and she wasn’t considered dangerous (she apparently killed her boy in a moment of anger and frustration with something he had done).

Of course maybe the police wanted to continue investigating while she was free. One important element in the crime was that her entire extended family was wiretapped (that’s a very popular and maybe a little abused practice in Italy by the Italian prosecutors). While eavesdropping on some of the telephone calls, the police found out of a plan by the murderer family (incl. her husband) to plant evidence on a neighbour. They were planning to put a bloody hammer in his garden. Of course that discovery was used against her at the trial and certainly didn’t help the woman. As I said she was found guilty with a definitive sentence. She was convicted to 16 years in prison (she got 30 yrs at the first trial then reduced to 16 in appeal) exactly like Rudy. She also opted for the abbreviated trial, which guarantees 1/3 automatic discount in the number of years.
John Winters said

am February 6 2010 @ 12:17 pm

Gary says:

”If you want to get real technical about the bra clasp there is always the possibility that Meredith and Rafaelle had a little fling at some point and he removed her bra during sex.”

Anything is possible, but when the location of a potential DNA-impressed item of evidence changes between the time it was originally identified at the crimescene and when it was bagged, it must be discounted, especially when its location over 47 days is UNKNOWN! The damned thing could have been to McDonalds and back on somebody’s heel in that time!!
John Winters said

am February 6 2010 @ 12:27 pm

Ivestia says:

”One important element in the crime was that her entire extended family was wiretapped (that’s a very popular and maybe a little abused practice in Italy by the Italian prosecutors).”

Oh what! This is almost as good as colonehall’s plaintive pleading for clemency for the criminal Minini. So now wiretapping is ‘a little abused practice in Italy.’ Scuse me while I check my Italian legal statutes, but tapping and recording the private telephone conversations of high-ranking police officers is a criminal offense in Italy just as much as it was in the States when Hunt and Liddy brought down the government by committing the same crime.
Enzo Zoff said

am February 6 2010 @ 12:38 pm

@John winters:

here’s Jooohhhnnnyyyy wrote:

“The damned thing could have been to McDonalds and back on somebody’s heel in that time!!”

The issue is NOT where the bra-clasp has been, but how S’s DNA got on there, idiot!

The obvious answer is that both he and Knox where at McDonalds.

You make such an issue about the 47 days delay; if I’ve asked you once I’m going to ask you now for up-teenth time, so what?

Bain in Florida was released after 35 YEARS after RECENT DNA technology proved him innocent ….

So what is your point? apart, foam the laugh a post idiocy that you contribute?

Again, I’m reminding you about Valentine’s Day; don’t forget the flowers for Amanda, ok?

dixi
Enzo Zoff said

am February 6 2010 @ 12:47 pm

@Mary H:

“…but if I lie in bed thinking about it long enough, I’ll come up with something.”

Mary H:, are you bragging again?

dixi
John Winters said

am February 6 2010 @ 12:56 pm

Bain in Florida was released after 35 YEARS after RECENT DNA technology proved him innocent ….

Eric Ferrero, spokesman for the Innocence Project, speaking specifically about the case you’ve mentioned here following Bain’s release, spoke about the peculiar circumstances surrounding retrieval of DNA unit traces. He said that a DNA profile can be extracted from decades-old evidence if it has been preserved properly. He went on to explain that this means evidence sealed in a bag and stored in a climate-controlled place, which is how most evidence according to him, is handled as a matter of routine.

I think the police and polizia scientifica people in Perugia would disagree with him.
IVSTITIA said

am February 6 2010 @ 1:35 pm

Winters said: “So now wiretapping is ‘a little abused practice in Italy.’ Scuse me while I check my Italian legal statutes, but tapping and recording the private telephone conversations of high-ranking police officers is a criminal offense in Italy”

It’s not illegal if you have the judge’s authorization to wiretap.

When I say abused, I’m not saying it was done illegally, I’m saying that the Italian judges tend to give such authorizations with higher than average frequency. According to an article I read in an Italian newspaper judges give such authorizations much more often than judges in the rest of European countries of similar size. Obviously the statistics may not take into consideration that Italy has a big problem with organized crime which is not particularly acute in other European states.
John Winters said

am February 6 2010 @ 1:57 pm

Ivestia says:

”When I say abused, I’m not saying it was done illegally, I’m saying that the Italian judges tend to give such authorizations with higher than average frequency.”

Yes of course Iv, we undestand.

”Obviously the statistics may not take into consideration that Italy has a big problem with organized crime.”

Oh, obviously, of course.

In fact, what you’re trying to sneakily imply here is that Minini’s telephone tapping was not illegal and that there is so much organised crime in Italy, Minini’s activities sort of got mixed up with it, so of course they weren’t illegal. Yeah, of course.

Unfortunately, the judge at his trial disagreed. Minini’s telephone tapping and recording was not authorised by anyone because its motives had nothing to do with police work. Minini illegally tapped and recorded the private telephone conversations of senior police officers like a common hood mixed up in the organised crime you rightly pointed out Minini indulges in too.
Where oh where? said

am February 6 2010 @ 3:43 pm

I’ve looked all over the internet and have seen no scientists or forensics experts who have written anything in support of “the knife” or bra clasp DNA evidence. Well, let me clarify that, no scientists or forensics experts who aren’t involved in the prosecution or who are willing to present their names and credentials. I have seen several who dispute or question “the knife” or the clasp DNA evidence.

Could any of you please direct me to where I can find experts who do support this DNA evidence outside, of course, anyone who has to do with the prosecution or the civil cases?

I asked this yesterday and no one came forward with any independent experts. It’s been over 2 months since the guilty verdict and I’ve read lots of independent experts who say the DNA knife and bra clasp evidence is highly flawed. Why are there no independent experts out there willing to come forward with a rebuttal argument?
John Winters said

am February 6 2010 @ 3:58 pm

Where oh where? says:

”Why are there no independent experts out there willing to come forward with a rebuttal argument?”

It’s because they’re inadequate and dependent.
Gary said

am February 6 2010 @ 4:20 pm

IVSTITIA said

1. The defendant, if left free, is in the position to tamper with the evidence.
2. The defendant is a dangerous individual and there is the possibility that s/he might commit another crime if left free.

Wow you just proved a great point when it comes to Magini. These are the reasons you posted for someone to be jailed while they are still going through the legal process. OK let’s see.
1. The defendant (Magini) is in the position to tamper with the evidence.
Well this is most definitely true seeing that he’s already been found guilty of planting evidence and tampering with evidence.
2. The defendant is a dangerous individual and there is the possibility that s/he might commit another crime if left free. Again…
Magini is a dangerous person seeing that it has been proven that he likes to take innocent people’s lives away from them by putting them in jail, and he is most certainly a risk of committing these crimes again considering he is still allowed to prosecute people.
So now what are your reasons for allowing Magini to stay free? I love how you gave the exact reasons why Magini should be put behind bars. Thanks.
Where oh where? said

am February 6 2010 @ 4:33 pm

“The people that supported this evidence testified in court.
That’s how it works.
The people you’ve seen on TV, and in magazines, and on blogs. That’s the work of a PR firm that got hired almost before Amanda hired a lawyer.”

Excuse me, but the scientists who have come forward with their names and credentials have put their reputations as scientists on the line. I don’t think any one of them would do this lightly or without some thought as to the consequences if what they were saying wasn’t true.

I haven’t seen, heard or read one independent expert who is willing to stake their reputation on the prosecution’s interpretation of the DNA evidence for the knife or the bra clasp.

I know the Italian justice system is in charge here, but if no scientist outside the ones involved in the prosecution side of the case come forward with support, what does that say about the quality of this evidence? Especially since several independent scientists with credentials have come forward to say that this evidence is highly flawed.
Mary H. said

am February 6 2010 @ 5:21 pm

As a general rule, where oh where, Mignini’s supporters cannot produce valid documentation for any of their claims about the case or the trial. They find most of their information on the truejustice website, where it has been edited to support that site’s agenda.

If you produce legitimate sources for claims in favor of Amanda’s innocence, your citations will be ignored and the subject will be changed (see Kim Bailey and “the mop and the bucket,” above).

You wrote: “Could any of you please direct me to where I can find experts who do support this DNA evidence outside, of course, anyone who has to do with the prosecution or the civil cases?”

No, nobody can.

Ivstitia will say he supports his claims with documentation of Italian legal code, but he refuses to acknowledge the law may not have been followed, or that it is irrelevant to revealing the actual facts of the case..
Enzo Zoff said

am February 6 2010 @ 10:28 pm

@John Winters:

here’s Jooohhhnnnyyyy, again:

you say:

“”Why are there no independent experts out there willing to come forward with a rebuttal argument?”

It’s because they’re inadequate and dependent.”

I say:

thank God we’re got you!

…. and May H, of course …. phew …

dixi
IVSTITIA said

am February 7 2010 @ 12:16 am

The crime of which Mignini was tried does not qualify for cautionary (preventative) detention.

Even if convicted all the way through the appeals, according to the Italian law, any conviction of less than 2 years is automatically suspended and is not served if the defendant has no prior criminal record.

Obviously no judge would put in jail a defendant before the trial when he knows damn well, that, even if convicted with a definitive sentence, he or she will not need to go to prison.

I suggest that you guys limit your discussion to the evidence and not to the legal procedures existing in Italy, because you obviously cannot debate matters of which you have zero, nada, zilch, nessun, knowledge.

And leave Mignini alone, his trial case has nothing to do with the kercher case. Let’s not forget that Amanda’s interrogation when she made the name of Lumumba occurred before he was even present. Therefore your attempt to portray Mignini as a Gestapo officer who tortured Amanda will not fly outside of this blog, certainly not in an Italian court. Sorry to disappoint you, but Mignini’s trial will play no role whatsoever in the appeal (Mignini won’t even be part of it).

Get ready to see Amanda’s conviction confirmed in appeal. Everything is possible but a conviction, maybe with a lower sentence, is the most likely scenario in appeal.

And John! If that happens, I can guarantee you that your President will send no Marine Corps to invade Italy. Count on that one!
Mary H. said

am February 7 2010 @ 12:34 am

Ivstitia wrote: “And leave Mignini alone, his trial case has nothing to do with the kercher case.”

You may think it has nothing to do with the Kercher case, but most observers think it has everything to do with Mignini’s credibility and his proclivity to abuse his office. Naturally, that plays into how they think he handled the Kercher case.

And Ivsitia wrote: “Let’s not forget that Amanda’s interrogation when she made the name of Lumumba occurred before he was even present.”

But just last week, Ivsitia, you wrote this:

“Add also that the police had evidence that Lumumba’s cell phone had pinged on the cell tower serving Piazza Grimana, and that Lumumba had changed phones one or two days after the murder (and therefore that fact raised suspicions). The phones was a problem for Lumumba even after his release. In fact although the Judge didn’t have enough elements for his detention he was still kept in the “registro degli indagati” (suspected register) for a little while longer after his release.”

All that surveillance sounds like it has a lot more to do with the police and the prosecution than it has to do with Amanda’s accusation.

In fact, with all the tapping and taping and dirt-collecting the police were doing on Amanda, Raffaele and Patrick in the days following the crime, it’s starting to become very clear that the three of them WERE suspects before they went in for their interrogations, and therefore should all have had lawyers, by Italian law.
Enzo Zoff said

am February 7 2010 @ 10:11 am

@Mary H:

you say:

“In fact, with all the tapping and taping and dirt-collecting the police were doing on Amanda, Raffaele and Patrick in the days following the crime, it’s starting to become very clear that the three of them WERE suspects before they went in for their interrogations, and therefore should all have had lawyers, by Italian law.”

The only thing that’s become very clear is your idiocy.

Let me see now, I want to this clear in my mind; I, the Police, find a person to be a SUSPECT – that is, I think that person might have done it, but I’m not sure yet and I’m in the process of collating evidence in whatever form. I have my suspicions about that person, so I have that person observed and surveilled in order to get and firm up my evidence. I don’t want to alert the suspect to what I’m doing, otherwise it would defeat the purpose of my surveillance.

So what do I do, as investigators of a crime surveilling suspects?

I know: advise them of what I’m doing and get them to get lawyers BEFORE I have established a case against them !!!

Mary H: too many Pink Panther DVDs, honey!

dixi

I
John Winters said

am February 7 2010 @ 11:34 am

”So what do I do, as investigators of a crime surveilling suspects?
I know: advise them of what I’m doing and get them to get lawyers BEFORE I have established a case against them !!!”

The fact is you, as the Perugia police, did ILLEGALLY tap and record the private phone calls of senior police officers.
A chief prosecutor found guilty of committing a serious offense like this was hardly going to advise anyone to get a lawyer. He doesn’t want law-abiding people like that around while he’s managing things like violent interrogations.
Gary said

am February 7 2010 @ 11:37 am

Mary: Thank You. I couldn’t have said it better myself. (Especially about Magini’s conviction being 100% relevant to the Knock case.
IVSTITIA: You must be from Italy! As far as the 2 year sentence being suspended that’s great, but do you think that Magini should be allowed to keep his job? Also I have been waiting patiently for your answer as to would you want Magini prosecuting you in a case if you were innocent? (Answer the question and stop ignoring it) I know why you’re not answering it because your answer would be no; and for good reason. In fact I don’t think you would want that guy prosecuting you even if you were guilty of a crime seeing that he would make up evidence to make his case better.
Let’s take a poll here. Who would want Magini prosecuting them for a crime they did not commit? (I know that no one would want to be prosecuted by any one for a crime they did not commit, but the question is pertaining to Magini)
This whole case and all the evidence presented in it was a total farce and we all know it. Sure you can say a jury convicted them and that should be respected. Yes I agree with that to a point. This is only if you have irrefutable evidence (Which they did not), you have a prosecutor that at the time of the trial was not under indictment for abuse of his job (Huge red flag that this man is up to no good), and you don’t have every single juror being plagued by the media and the rest of the country to convict over made up stories published in the tabloid.
IVSTITIA: As far as the U.S. President sending the marine core to invade Italy that’s the most ignorant thing I have heard out of your mouth so far. Trust me if the president wanted to send troops over to invade Italy the place would be a pile of rubble when we got done. (Well that’s just plain stupid anyways seeing that no one would go to war over the wrongful incarceration of one person from America).
Anyways I would love to see the irrefutable evidence they have. And for that matter I would love to know what the motive was (No way this was a satanic ritual). Why on earth would a bright college student who had everything going for her say to herself let’s mimic the Halloween satanic ritual and rape and murder my roommate and best friend. In fact let’s not only rape and murder her; let’s be real smart about it and clean up only our DNA from the crime scene and leave Gueda’s all over the place. Then we will take the knife that we murdered her with and put it back in the drawer at Solechitto’s house (They will never look there for it). The knife scenario is only feasible if it was the real murder weapon; which it was not. Opps!!!! After all the killing and raping and cleaning up they forgot the bra clasp.
Face it the bra clasp evidence is garbage for many of reasons. (And not just because it was left there for 6 weeks, moved and contaminated by multiple people) The knife evidence (Well that speaks for itself). Amanda’s DNA being all over the house (Well that speaks for itself also seeing she lived there.) Where is the evidence of Amanda’s DNA left during the commission of the crime? Gueda’s is there and has been proven to have been left there during the crime, but where is Amanda’s? Where are all these experts that are so convinced of her guilt that you are saying they are not going to put their reputations on the line (WHAT??????????????????????) Put their reputations on the line for what? Why because they can’t back up their claims therefore it will make them look stupid and their testimony garbage.
Give it up because no matter what you say or anyone else that is against Amanda and Rafaelle says you all know that these two are totally innocent and that the Italian justice system has been put to shame by all of this. If you want to make a bet as to the appeal let’s do it. Now that we have the freak out of the way and everything he did to put Amanda behind bars will be under question should make this a guarantee win. As far as I’m concerned it’s Magini who is the stupid one because he just blew his whole case against Amanda and Rafaellle. Thanks Magini. (Have fun in hell)
Enzo Zoff said

am February 7 2010 @ 12:00 pm

@John Winters:

here’s Joooohhhnnnyyy!

“The fact is you, as the Perugia police, did ILLEGALLY tap and record the private phone calls of senior police officers.”

Bud, build a bridge and get over it !!!

Firstly, what the blazes does Mignini’s prior allegations of abuse of office have to do with Knox?; it wold ONLY have relevance if he had been committed the same, but he didn’t !!!

So how does the fact that he didn’t make K/S any more innocent or less guilty?

And anyone and everyone with an atom of objectivity could see what the real objective was behind Mignini’s abuse; except you Preston and Mary H who hang on to this as a desperate attempt to link a prior case to another.

They wire-tapped ALL protagonists, including S’s sister who at the time was a lieutenant in the police force. She was ‘ caught ‘ admitting that she was going to tamper with evidence. She was sacked and now faces trial.

So much for your anti-american sentiment ……

grow-up. Really, just grow up, you idiot.

dixi
IVSTITIA said

am February 7 2010 @ 1:13 pm

Mary H.: The police did not tap Lumumba’s phone. They found out that his phone pinged on the cell tower serving Piazza Grimana from the Mobile Phone company. You may not know this, but whenever your cell phone is on it pings on a a cell tower near where you are. If you start driving away from where you are the phone will start pinging in other towers. That’s because cellphones work according to a technology called mushroom technology. The cellphone company can provide your location at any time, with pretty good accuracy, thanks to that technology. If you don’t want people to know where you’re or where you’re going you should turn your cell phone off. Incidentally that’s what Raffaele and Amanda did on Nov. 1 at approx. 20:42.

Gary: “As far as the 2 year sentence being suspended that’s great, but do you think that Magini should be allowed to keep his job?”
The law says he’s still innocent and the suspended sentence would anyway apply to the interdiction from holding public office. There is nothing in the law that could prevent him from continuing in his current position. Consider however that is work with Amanda is done, since his office is not competent for arguing appeals. Therefore what difference would it make if he quitted today?

Gary: I wouldn’t have a problem being prosecuted by Mignini. It’s not the prosecuors who decides whether to convict or not, it’s the judges. And this is true also in America. If his case has no merit, he won’t win the case.

Gary wrote: “As far as the U.S. President sending the marine core to invade Italy that’s the most ignorant thing I have heard out of your mouth so far”
I agree with you, it is an ignorant thing to say. To think that Obama would send troops to invade Italy, a democratic nation member of the EU and NATO ally, in order to liberate Amanda is ridiculous, but that’s exactly what Mr. John Winters said in another blog, and that’s why I made that comment. If Amanda is convicted nothing would be done by the US Government. The US would not want to ruin relations with an ally, considering also that there have been other instances where Americans have escaped justice in Italy (26 CIA agents who kidnapped a person as part of a rendition program, one US pilot who was flying way below the permitted altitude and killed 20 European skiers in the Alps, a US soldier who killed an Italian official in Baghdad). There are also instances of Italians widely believed to be wrongly incarcerated in the US, the most famous right now is Carlo Parlanti. Did you see the Italian government complaining or even mentioning to the US or Californian authorities about that? Clearly not!
Governments tend to stay out of judicial matters when they happen in other democratic nations. That’s because the judiciary both in Italy and the US is supposed to be independent from political intervention.

Regarding the rest of what you wrote, I don’t care to debate the evidence anymore, it’s kind of pointless. It’s like having a Republican and a Democrat debate. They’ll still remain a Republican and a Democrat at the end of the conversation. I’d rather let the judges decide.
Where oh where? said

am February 7 2010 @ 3:40 pm

Thank you, Mary, for your explanation. I know what you’re saying is right.

But I’m not really asking about valid documentation from the prosecution. I understand the lack thereof. I understand what all the “guilters” are doing but I still have to ask again.

It’s been 2 months since the verdict and I’ve read several articles by or about DNA experts from around the world who have problems with the knife and clasp DNA. They seem to have no issues with putting their names and credentials on these articles. But I haven’t found a single article by a DNA expert from anywhere else in the world, including Italy, who has put their stamp of approval on this evidence. Why not?

I also perfectly understand that the Italian courts have absolutely no obligation to pay any attention to what these experts in the field of DNA have to say.

But I can guarantee that in the court of public opinion and in the scientific community, what these experts have to say does matter. And the longer this case goes on, well, suffice it to say, the more the time for these experts to come forward.

I’m also very curious about you “guilters”. Doesn’t it phase you even a little bit that the knife and clasp DNA has no expert supporters outside the few involved in this case? Not even a single scientist in Italy has come out with an outraged, “how dare you” response to what is being written and said.
PhanuelB said

am February 7 2010 @ 4:00 pm

WhereOhWhere:

You are correct that courts shouldn’t be looking over their shoulders or considering what is said outside of court.

But they better understand that they have an obligation to make public anything and everything that occurred in that trial save for matters legitimately sealed.

The problem is that the world is coming in to see for themselves if justice was done and we don’t have what we need in front of us. As I understand it, journalists can attend the trial and view court documents, but they can’t publish any of those documents. The result is that so much here is just second or third hand information.

I’ve had it up to here with being asked to take Harry Rag’s word for it that she said this or that or that it was all voluntary. Italian law should be changed so that there is no proh

Comedian explains why she organized Amanda Knox comedy show fundraiser

1,209 Comments so far »

Ava said

Guest said

Guest said

Sherri said

Harry Rag said

John Winters said

maryville said

John Winters said

maryville said

Theo Stanopoulos said

Sherri said

maryville said

Quentin Zoerhoff said

maryville said

Kim Bailey said

Guest said

slimjim a crazy said

maryville said

Theo Stanopoulos said

maryville said

maryville said

maryville said

maryville said

J.T. Lund said

Rick Bonin said

Chase Roper said

Kim Bailey said

Crazies said

John Winters said

Al-Fakh Yugoudh said

Lucinda said

John Winters said

John Winters said

Robin said

Bill said

Harry R. Wilkens said

Al-Fakh Yugoudh said

Al-Fakh Yugoudh said

Tony Del Balzo said

Al-Fakh Yugoudh said

Al-Fakh Yugoudh said

Tony Del Balzo said

John Winters said

John Winters said

Just me said

Just me said

Al-Fakh Yugoudh said

Just me said

Tony said

Mary H. said

pat az said

CHAR said

michael j butler said

msanc said

msanc said

CHAR said

maryville said

sadjoe said

CHAR said

Shilo said

Mary H. said

CHAR said

jim said

jim said

Amber Preston said

@ Mary H said

Enzo Zoff said

Enzo Zoff said

Kim Bailey said

NOSEE'EM's said

Shane said

Shane said

Mary H. said

Mary H. said

privatedoberman said

See the UK Documentary said

privatedoberman said

Jiminy said