Skip to comments.Amanda Knox has 'heart in her mouth' as pair await murder verdict
Posted on 01/30/2014 7:33:45 AM PST by Uncle Chip
Amanda Knox will have her heart in her mouth when a court in Italy decides whether to clear her of involvement in the murder of Meredith Kercher or uphold a guilty conviction she received five years ago.
The American student is awaiting the verdict in the latest round of a complex, seven-year legal process at her home in Seattle.....
Her lawyers in Florence said they are confident the American will be cleared of guilt in the murder of Miss Kercher, a Leeds University student who was studying in Perugia in Umbria when she was killed in 2007.
Carlo Dalla Vedova, one of the Italian lawyers representing the woman nicknamed Foxy Knoxy, said he felt "serene" about the verdict, which is expected to be handed down later today.
He said the only possible outcome from the jurys discussions must be "the innocence of Amanda Knox." Miss Knox, 26, has not attended any of the hearings in the re-trial, which started in September.
Mr Sollecito, on the other hand, has made frequent court appearances, always in a purple sweater, the color of the local Florentine football club. He was in court again today, accompanied by his father and other relatives.....
Lawyers for Miss Knox and her former lover maintain that the murder was committed by one person alone Rudy Guede, a local drifter and small-time drug dealer who is serving a 16-year jail term after being found guilty in a separate trial.
Guede, who fled Italy after the murder and was then extradited from Germany, has admitted that he was in Miss Kerchers room that night but denies that he killed her.
Prosecutors insist that the murder was committed by more than one killer and that Miss Knox and Mr Sollecito took part in the killing along with Guede.
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
The French Courts are crazy. Do they still have the guillotine, too?
This an Italian court sideshow.
She’s American, she’s not guilty, she was determined to be not guilty in an earlier trial and they can go $)*(^#$^&*# themselves over there!
This is an Italian court and apparently in Italy they have knives with three handles on them.
I personally think she did it. Whether that has been proven sufficiently is another question.
So you don’t believe that this Rudy Guede did it?
I believe Ms. Knox had a role, based on her very odd behavior and changing stories the following day.
Thanks....Don’t know why I thought French...Just the cruelty I guess.
Girls rarely kill their rivals. They might fight and sputter...but kill??
Why is that? I haven’t yet seen any convincing evidence that she’s guilty but I have seen a lot of evidence of prosecutorial misconduct.
What role could that have been???
How many people does it take to kill someone in Italy???
I believe a girl - any human being - who is in a drug-hazed trance will do anything. I believe she had a role in the murder. That’s my opinion.
What happens if they find her guilty (again)? Does she go back to jail in Italy?
Changing stories? After being badgered all night and day in a foreign language I can think of a number of ways a lunatic prosecutor could twist my words. Keep in mind that this prosecutor has been sanctioned many times for misconduct in other cases. He fakes evidence and withholds exculpatory evidence. He loves to play to the media. He’s a nutburger.
It’s been a while since I’ve read up on this, but that was my takeaway from before.
There isn’t a shred of physical evidence that Knox or her boyfriend had anything to do with this murder. The prosecutors story involving crazy sex is a figment of his sick mind and if I remember correctly, he’s made up stories in other cases before. Going by memory, he did the same thing in the famous Florence serial murder case. But as with all things in Italy, he’s related to someone of importance so no matter how incompetent, he gets to keep on doing what he’s doing.
Knox is not guilty...in every way possible...
The Italian appeals courts already ruled het innocent...this is just double jeopardy. If Knox wasn’t a hot American girl she would never been arrested
They seek psychological help for the jury.
There is no way she would be extradicted to Italy.
This just means she can never go back to Italy, or possibly other cuntries that might send her to Italy.
“I believe a girl - any human being - who is in a drug-hazed trance will do anything.”
This current trial didn’t even suggest that there was anything drug-related with the killing. Prosecutors contend that it was the result of escalating arguments about the cleanliness of the apartment.
If she’s found guilty, she’ll be sentenced again. They’ll surely appeal again, and Italy could try to extradite her, but apparently experts suggest they may not even try to get her back there.
I personally think she did it. Whether that has been proven sufficiently is another question.
What specific evidence that has been shown sways you in the direction you have gone?
Does it at all concern you that for this current trial, the prosecution is floating an entirely different theory of what caused the murder to occur, that no longer was it a drug fueled sex game gone bad, but an oh so ordinary messy apartment and unflushed toilet that led to the argument ending in murder?
The odd behavior and changing stories were fabrications by the Italian press.
“When Knox was first questioned by police, it was because she was not only a housemate of the victim, but she was also one of the first people—a witness, not a suspect—to encounter the crime scene the morning after the murder. As the facts she recounted changed, and she learned that Sollecito had contradicted her alibi of being with him throughout the entire night, Knox began to dig herself deeper and deeper into an evidentiary hole. Then she did the unthinkable: She falsely accused a man she knew—her boss at the bar at which she worked—of being the killer. Just pages earlier in her memoir, when she bemoaned her dilemma, Knox writes, “the authorities I trusted thought I was a liar. But I wasn’t lying.” Then she goes on to describe how she came up with the idea to finger a businessman—a friend to her—to throw suspicion off herself. Can you think of anything worse than naming a person to police as a murderer, when you know he’s completely innocent? Can you imagine telling that blatant a lie to police, who then went out to arrest the guy? Amanda Knox’s credibility is the centerpiece of her case, and she not only undermined that in 2007, but writes about it again—already convicted of slander of the accused man—as though it was an act without profound consequences.”
“Knox’s blood in the bathroom sink, there along with Kercher’s”
“There are two major areas in which what I would call Knox’s lack of candor will be a disservice to her. One is the issue of the laptop and the cellphones (Sollecito’s and her own). The electronic records don’t lie, but again it seems that Knox is dishonest in her description of their importance. The timeline Knox tried to establish for the night of the crime is belied by the fact that Sollecito’s computer was shut off at 9:10pm and not used again all night. Similarly, in activity quite different than their usage in the preceding week, both cellphones were shut off from 8:40pm until 6am. The prosecution apparently made important use of this fact, while Knox offers no logical explanation to us here.”
“The other issue concerns the mop that Knox claims to have taken from her home to Sollecito’s apartment. She never mentions the police claim that his place smelled of bleach, nor does she link it to the fact that the floor at the crime scene was so bloody that it was not illogical for the police to connect the mop and bleach to efforts by the two suspects to clean up after the murder.”
“Amanda Knox manages to blame just about everyone in her orbit for the position in which she found herself, charged with the murder of a housemate. It’s the other occupants of the house, casual acquaintances, just about every police official trying to solve the brutal crime, prosecutors and court officials. There doesn’t seem to be a page of introspection which examines her own actions and statements—I don’t mean the cartwheels, nor the antics with Sollecito, nor the seeming lack of empathy for Kercher—but, rather, the lies, inconsistencies, unusual steps in the hours and days following the discovery of Kercher’s body—all of her own doing and all of which led to putting Amanda Knox in the docket. When Knox started to write this memoir, I assume she thought the case and the ordeal was behind her. Now there may be another trial, and many of the words in this book may turn out to be evidence against her.”
If she’s found guilty deport her.
The evidence pointing toward Knox's involvement in the murder includes:
There clearly was anti-American sentiment against Knox, as well as judgment against her in the Italian media before her trial. A significant amount of Rudy Guede's DNA was found at the murder scene.
I don't know what to believe.
He sleeps with the fish
Amanda, while at the police station waiting for her boyfriends interogation to end, is seen doing cartwheels and the splits. Who else exhibited this type of odd behaviour??? Remember Jodi Arias? Just google Amanda Knox alibi... there’s tons of info out there....
I always thought Amanda Knox was guilty.
“ A knife with Knox's DNA on the handle and a trace of Kercher’s DNA on the blade. The defense argues the amount of DNA was to small to identify it as Knox's DNA.”
A kitchen knife that was used many times by her while using the kitchen and making meals. I bet if, God-forbid, there was a murder in your home and the weapon was a knife from your kitchen, the police would find your DNA on it
“Two luminol-enhanced footprints presumably made by Knox in Kercher’s blood in the hallway outside her bedroom. The defense argues they could have been made in fruit juice, rust or cleaning agents and noted that no specific test for blood was conducted. One of the footprints was in a size 37. Knox's shoes were all size 37 or 38.”
She comes home and walks in the blood. If you come home and enter your home, find someone you know murdered, you likey already would have contaminated the scene by merely entering the location before you realized it, or you contaminated the scene because you went to the victim to see if you could help. Of course you would walk into the scene in any event and leave footprints.
“Five drops of mixed-blood genetic material.”
But not her blood?
“A staged burglary, yet valuables were not taken, and the body having been moved to suggest a sexual assault when none took place.”
Not unusual for sexual assaults that failed.
“The broken glass from the alleged entry window was found on top of the scattered clothing and items from emptied drawers, suggesting that the entry was staged after the burglary was staged.”
And this implicates her. . .how?
“Witnesses to circumstantial evidence, such as Knox and Kercher arguing, Knox buying cleaning materials, etc.”
Arguing between roommates? And this somehow contributes to guilt? And those were bought when and with what other items?
“Kercher’s bra clasp, which had been cut off the victim, found in Knox's boyfirend’s room, with a significant amount of the boyfriend's DNA on it. It wasn't picked up by the police until 46 days after the murder and in a slightly different place than photographed before.”
So, a piece from the victim bra was cut-off and photographed at one location, and then 46 days later (and Knox never being back to the secured scene), she somehow moved the bra item. . .and for what purpose? And the bra item was not picked up by the police until 46 days later. . .and important piece of forensic evidence that was over-looked but then “found” later by the police and it had some DNA on it. . .weird.
“Knox blaming Patrick Lumumba for the murder.”
Yes. Not a problem at all. During police questioning they usually ask “who do you think might have done this?” She answered. (In university a guy that I didn't get along with had his car vandalized. . .the police asked him who he thinks might have done it. He provided a list of names, mine included. Does his pointing the finger at other people indicate he was guilty?)
I agree. I don’t think she’s guilty. It is very rare for a woman to commit murder (except in self-defense). On top of that, she just doesn’t come across as guilty. She strikes me as an innocent woman who is getting railroaded by a corrupt justice system.
Not as often as men but it does happen.
They also typically use firearms, poison or hired help in murders due to their physical weakness.
I’d say it’s highly unlikely she attacked the girl with a knife on her own. If anything, she was helping the man.
I don’t think an accident due to weird sexual play is out of the question either. Women are typically very secretive about such things and it may be the reason she was so evasive during the initial interviews.
That, and the fact that he has admitted that he was there and has been convicted of murdering her by an Italian court and is currently doing time in an Italian jail for the crime, is enough for me.
Inconclusive - pretty sure my blood/dna is on all my kitchen knives.
Two luminol-enhanced footprints presumably made by Knox in Kercher's blood in the hallway outside her bedroom. The defense argues they could have been made in fruit juice, rust or cleaning agents and noted that no specific test for blood was conducted. One of the footprints was in a size 37. Knox's shoes were all size 37 or 38.
If it wasn't tested for blood, it's meaningless.
Five drops of mixed-blood genetic material.
Without more information about where these drops were found and who's mixed DNA it is, this is meaningless, because it could be anybody or manufactured evidence (as this prosecutor is known for).
A staged burglary, yet valuables were not taken, and the body having been moved to suggest a sexual assault when none took place. The broken glass from the alleged entry window was found on top of the scattered clothing and items from emptied drawers, suggesting that the entry was staged after the burglary was staged.
Evidence that a panicked killer tried to stage the crime scene is not evidence of who that person was, only that it was done.
Witnesses to circumstantial evidence, such as Knox and Kercher arguing, Knox buying cleaning materials, etc.
People argue and buy cleaning materials in the normal course of life also, does that make everyone a murderer.
Kercher's bra clasp, which had been cut off the victim, found in Knox's boyfirend's room, with a significant amount of the boyfriend's DNA on it. It wasn't picked up by the police until 46 days after the murder and in a slightly different place than photographed before.
This is the opposite of evidence for Knox's guilt. It is evidence of evidence tampering. Something this prosecutor is known for.
Knox blaming Patrick Lumumba for the murder.
So she lacks character when she's in a desperate situation. It's not evidence of guilt. False accusations and/or false confessions are rather common in interrogations.
I use Occam's razor in murky waters. Rudy Guede not only left a lot of DNA, he had a history of knife assaults and menacing with a knife as well as burglary and theft. I believe he was also slightly mentally ill or unstable.
And the victim's DNA on the blade? And the wounds on the victim consistent with that knife? That's possible.
"Five drops of mixed-blood genetic material. But not her blood?
I wasn't clear. Five drops of mixed-blood genetic material consisting of Knox's blood and Kercher's blood.
Arguing between roommates? And this somehow contributes to guilt?
It's circumstantial evidence frequently used in United States courts to demonstrate motive. Is it indicative to guilt in all cases? Of course not.
She comes home and walks in the blood.
I don't remember the timeline, but Knox and her boyfriend claim not to have found the body until many hours after the murder. Blood dries, even if you are inclined to step in puddles of blood.
The bra evidence has nothing to do with Knox - it has to do with her boyfriend being involved with the murder. The theory all along has been that Knox and her boyfriend - and possibly a third party - committed the murder. There's no allegation Knox moved the bra clasp.
I didn't present a definitve list of evidence against Knox, such as the mop, the bleach, and so on.
Now, do I believe that Knox is guilty?
I said I'm not certain.
What I do know are a few things:
Knox was subjected to police misconduct and prosecutorial misconduct.
Knox was subjected to anti-American sentiments.
Knox was tried in the media and evidence that was inadmissible at trial, including Knox's own journal, was leaked in the media.
There is also DNA evidence pointing to the presence of a person in addition to Knox and her boyfriend.
Knox's supporters either ignore all forensic and other evidence supporting her guilt or immediately dismiss it, not matter what it is or how much there is.
The evidence against Knox is not definitive, as clearly shown by the original not guilty verdict.
Actually I consider that evidence of innocence on her part.
She was probably asked during 36 hours of badgering in crass Italian that if she didn't do it, who did -- and she just went through a list of persons that she and Kercher mutually knew and the prosecution then seized on this one.
Note that she didn't say anything that pointed to the guy who was eventually convicted of her murder that they claim that she was in league with.
If she was in on it with him she would at some point have given him up or said something generic about him like it could have been "some drifter whose name I don't know that she met that night in a bar".
That may be, Uncle Chip, although Amanda Knox says she gave up only one name, Lumbumba's, after being interrogated for 36 hours.
If she was in on it with [Rudy Guede] she would at some point have given him up or said something generic about him like it could have been "some drifter whose name I don't know that she met that night in a bar".
I think that's an excellent point, although I wouldn't agree that it's 100% certain that she would have given him up. Human nature is unpredictable. Giving up Rudy Guede may have implicated her, whereas naming Lumbumba wouldn't.
Again, I am NOT saying she's guilty.
Do you have any idea how they traced this crime to Rudy Guede???
Amanda testified there was no blood on the floor.
It’s hard, very hard to get an accurate idea of what really happened here, esp when you have Ann Coulter coming out saying that the girl was guilty guilty guilty.
I saw someone, a reputable prosecutor who said he had reviewed all the information, and said there was no way the girl was guilty.
So, who do you believe? Where is Ann Coulter now on this? Probably still sniffing after Chris Christie....
All of that is possible.
That’s not all FOXY has had in her mouth.
She WAS guilty, and remains guilty. A petulant, over-sexed, pampered narcissist. GUILTY!
“I personally think she did it. Whether that has been proven sufficiently is another question.”
How can we judge guilt or innocence without a picture?
I'm trying to figure out how the police identified Guede. Amanda and Guede were friends.
From the beginning, the police concluded that Meredith Kercher was killed by more than one assailant. She had wounds from two different knives. The bruises on her wrists indicated that she had been held down with great force and the lack of any blood or skin on her fingernails suggested she had not been able to strike back at her attacker(s), yet all of her clothing had been torn from her body, suggesting that one person held her down while least one other stripped her.
Judge Giancarlo Massei, Judge Paolo Micheli, and the Supreme Court of Cassation all concluded that multiple perpetrators murdered Meredith Kercher. The DNA mixed with Kercher's blood in the bathroom did not belong to Guede.At the time of Merediths murder, Rudy Guede had no known arrest record, no criminal history, was not found to possess drugs or drug paraphernalia, although he admittedly smoked marijuana. He's termed a "drifter" by the public relations firm hired by Amanda Knox's parents in 2007, yet he was renting his own apartment at the time of the murder.
You'll hear that Guede has a 'past history with knives.'
The story behind that claim is this. Earlier in the year of the murder, Guede was spotted walking out of the principal's office in a local Milan school. He was detained. When the police searched his backpack, they found a laptop and a knife. The laptop was later identified as having been stolen from a Milan law firm. Guede claimed he had purchased it. No charges were pressed against him and he was released by the police. Guede had no other history of a fascination with or use of knives.
Guede has changed certain details of his confession several times, but his confession has generally been that he was present when Kercher was murdered, that he had sexually assaulted her, but that Knox and Sollecito were present and wielded the two knives.
At the trial were Guede was convicted, the trial judge ruled that Knox and Sollecito were accomplices to the murder. This was an entirely different trial than the one that's at issue now.
One other curious detail is that Knox supporters claim Guede entered Kircher's apartment by climbing through a shuttered window, facing the street, 13" off the ground, while holding a 9-pound rock in one hand. This is where the evidence that the rock and broken glass were on top of the simulated burglary comes into play.
Guede has confessed that entered the apartment through the front door with Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox, that he sexually assaulted Kircher, and that Sollecito and Knox stabbed Kircher to death.
One other detail that's often not presented is that fact that Patrick Lumumba had employed Amanda Knox and was helping her get her work visa. He had cut back her hours to two days per week, allegedly because of poor work performance. The day of the murder, he called Knox and asked her not to come to work that night.
Some speculate that's why Knox named Lumumba as the killer.
Again, the Italian jury found Knox not guilty - but it's simply not the case that there was no evidence against. I'm satisfied that the jury found her not guilty initially, but I know that there are plenty of intelligent legal minds who believe Knox and Sollecito were involved in the murder.
Its hard, very hard to get an accurate idea of what really happened here, esp when you have Ann Coulter coming out saying that the girl was guilty guilty guilty.
The only reason Ann Coulter believes Amanda Knox is guilty is because Amanda is way younger and way prettier than she is.
She WAS guilty, and remains guilty. A petulant, over-sexed, pampered narcissist. GUILTY!
LOL. You believe the MSM without question because this story feeds your preconceived notions.
You describe her exactly as the media did. Congrats. Hook, line and sinker.
There was a black guy in jail who admitted to doing it, and somehow the courts try to say she and the boyfriend were in on it as well.
The guy already in jail had a history, the other two did not.
There was no real motive, so Italy is insane and cocky to be pushing this again IMO.
I wrote: "Guede has changed certain details of his confession several times, but his confession has generally been that he was present when Kercher was murdered, that he had sexually assaulted her, but that Knox and Sollecito were present and wielded the two knives."
What I should have pointed out is that, in his first confession, Guede said that Amanda Knox was not in the apartment. He quickly changed that story, but that's what he said initially.
I know of nothing other than the backpack incident at the nursery school. What other history did Guede have?
I told you about the bloody fingerprint.
Apparently, Guede had previously given his fingerprints when he applied for an Italian identity card.