Amanda Knox: U.S. Movie Is 'Invasion' Of My Life

PERUGIA, Italy — U.S. student Amanda Knox told a court Thursday that a movie documenting the murder of her British roommate and Knox's trial is an "invasion of my life," her lawyer said.

Knox made the statement at a civil court hearing, held behind closed-doors, aimed at halting circulation of the film "Amanda Knox: Murder on Trial in Italy."

"I'm upset over this invasion of my life, and for the speculation at my expense," Knox told the court, according to her lawyer Carlo Dalla Vedova.

Dalla Vedova noted the movie aired in February on the Lifetime television network despite his legal attempt to block it. He said it is also is available on Lifetime's website, and on video streaming sites. He also wants trailers for the movie, which features "Heroes" star Hayden Panettiere in the title role, removed from other sites where they appear.

"Before it was a threat of damage. Today there is ongoing damage," Dalla Vedova said, citing Knox's appeal on her murder conviction. The appeals trial continues Saturday.

"It is today causing real damage to Amanda, to the Italian justice system and to her privacy," he said, citing references to Knox's sex life and medical history made in the film.

Les Eisner, a spokesman for Lifetime's parent company, A&E Television Networks, said Thursday that the network had no comment.

Dalla Vedova said the civil case was delayed until July 4 so Lifetime can respond to a summons to appear before the court.

Knox was convicted of murdering Meredith Kercher in the apartment they shared as exchange students in Perugia, and sentenced to 26 years in prison. Her co-defendant and ex-boyfriend, Raffaele Sollecito of Italy, also was convicted and sentenced to 25 years.

They both deny wrongdoing and have appealed the 2009 verdict.

Comments

[Hypocrites are Watching]

03:23 PM on 04/12/2011

Any one who hath understandingand and is halfway intelligent will tell you that lack of evidence is NOT PROOF of the alternative theory.Ill break it down for you. A mine in Colorado has suddenly closed. Upon arriving at the town near the mine you find it deserted.You investigate and find an old prospector and his wife. The prospector tells you that it’s the ghost of the miner ‘49er come back,Mrs. Prospector says the miners hit a gas pocket and the town was evacuated. You go back into town after taking full scientific readings you see that there is NO trace of any harmful element.Now having a lack of evidence to prove the miners hitting a gas pocket and evacuating the town DOES IN NO WAY PROVE THE ALTERNATE THEORY!!! But to use another ...How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth? ..In solving a problem of this sort, the grand thing is to be able to reason backward. That is a very useful accomplishment, and a very easy one, but people do not practise it much. In the everyday affairs of life it is more useful to reason forward, and so the other comes to be neglected. There are fifty who can reason synthetically for one who can reason analytically. ..There is no branch of detective science which is so important and so much neglected as the art of tracing footsteps.

[Ergon]

06:32 PM on 04/08/2011

I note the increasingly tendentious oralloy is here on this thread saying
a) the 'corrupt judge' sentenced Knox unfairly.
Which is libelous, it was the prosecutor who has been charged and found guilty.
b) Rudy Guede broke in through the second floor window. 
All three courts in the sentencing of Guede have said that was not so, but an attempt by others to cover up culpability. And,
c) Only one person committed the crime.
Again, all three courts have accepted there was more than one person, and while the evidence against K+S is mostly circumstantial, the weight of evidence makes them likely suspects.
To sum it up for you, the courts have decided Rudy Guede did NOT act alone, and there is evidence Knox/Sollecito were at least present during the attack.

[jamelen3]

09:39 AM on 04/09/2011

Conjecture. Not true. What evidence?! There is none. Guede is only trying to get a lighter sentence, he is the one who should have stood trial for the rape and murder of Meredith. His dna was all over her bedroom and his semen was found inside of the victim. There is nothing linking Amanda and Raffaello to being there. The only thing, dna(not blood) found in the bathroom which the 2 girls shared. She walked in the next morning to take a shower and walked on the mat to undress in the bathroom. She admitted seeing small drops of blood as if someone had their menstral period or had cut themself shaving. There is a whold lot of reasonable doubt to put her away for life to rot in jail. It is inconceivable for her to spend most of her life in jail for something she never did! She is not a killer.

[Ergon]

10:19 AM on 04/09/2011

You are singularly uninformed, as are the other members of the Knox fan club. Rudy Guede's "semen was NOT found inside of the victim" or anywhere else.

[Hypocrites are Watching]

10:38 AM on 04/09/2011

Again in Italy it is NOT reasonable doubt but the preponderance of evidence that the courts go on 'nuff said!!!!!!!!!!

[Hypocrites are Watching]

10:36 AM on 04/09/2011

I do believe at least one if not more posters here are on knoxs’/attorney payroll jackbutler kcmookie jccourt and the obvious jamelen3 & oralloy. Otherwise I have no fathomable idea why some are continuing to support these people whose only “proof” of innocence is their word –and backed up by the defense team (not a shread of evidence circumstantial or not).

[Ergon]

07:51 PM on 04/09/2011

I'm interested in the psychological aspect of this. Many of the FOA seem so emotionally attached to her innocence. I remember the same when so many were just as attached to OJ Simpson's guilt, and the incoherent replies I get sometimes to my questions seem indicative of some form of emotional instability.

[Hypocrites are Watching]

04:34 PM on 04/04/2011

Let me see if I have this correct a young girl was brutally and savagely murdered and raped. The crime scene shows that more than one person was perpetrated the crime. The authorities investigating found that 3 people were involved Raffaele Sollecito, Rudy Guede and Amanda Knox. Guede under advice from his attorney opted to have a speedy trial. The evidence used against him (not disputed) was later used in the case against Knox & Sollecito. NOW the evidence is being disputed and the “basis” for this dispute…. The entire Italian police force the entire Italian Judicial System (all the Judges all the attorneys all the witnesses) and the entire Italian media are in cahoots in so much as they are all conspiring against these two fabricating evidence, seeing them where they weren’t ,contaminating articles and beating confessions out of them. Is that what is being “discussed” here !?!?!??!

[Oralloy]

07:00 AM on 04/05/2011

"Let me see if I have this correct a young girl was brutally and savagely murdered and raped. The crime scene shows that more than one person was perpetrated the crime."

No. The crime scene shows that one person broke in and committed the crime alone.

---

"The authorities investigating found that 3 people were involved Raffaele Sollecito, Rudy Guede and Amanda Knox."

No. They found that one person was involved and are framing two others that they know are innocent.

---

The middle part of my reply is long enough that I need to break my reply into three parts. This is part 1.

[Hypocrites are Watching]

01:15 PM on 04/06/2011

In your opinion what is the motivation for the authorities saying that it was more than one perpetrator IF there wasn’t? You keep yelling for proof and if one opinion (mine for instance ) needs proof (i am going with the court documents) so does the other yours WHAT is your proof and dont say things like everywhere its in the other posts etc... WHAT IS YOUR PROOF!?

[Hypocrites are Watching]

06:18 PM on 04/08/2011

Giving the fact you cry out on every article about these convicted murderers i thought you should know any half-way intelligen­­t scientist or judge (heck person) wil­l tell you that lack of evidence is not proof of the alternativ­­e theory.”

[Oralloy]

07:10 AM on 04/05/2011

"Guede under advice from his attorney opted to have a speedy trial. The evidence used against him (not disputed) was later used in the case against Knox & Sollecito. NOW the evidence is being disputed"

The push to frame two innocent people has already gotten Guede's sentence cut nearly in half.

Guede originally had a life sentence, with a fast-track sentence reduction dropping that to 30 years.

When Amanda and Raffaele got mitigating circumstances, the courts couldn't justify not giving the same mitigating circumstances to Guede, and boom, his life sentence was cut to the same 24 years that they got, and then the fast-track sentence reduction cut that to 16 years.

Guede will be up for parole now after having served 8 years. And he's already served more than 3 of those 8 years.

HOWEVER, the fact that the evidence against Amanda and Raffaele is fraudulent gives Guede's lawyers a great opening to argue that the evidence against him is fraudulent as well. We may see Guede walking free even sooner than we think.

[Hypocrites are Watching]

04:14 PM on 04/07/2011

“"@ Oralloy. I may be wrong, but there's no evidence to support any beatings before the parents accused the police of it, was there?"

Sure there is. First, there is the fact that the police refuse to let anyone hear the recording of the interrogat¬ion.

And second there is the fact that Amanda made an immediate written retraction after the interrogat¬ion, and never lied any other time.


You make this too easy ----sure there is First, there is the fact that the police refuse to let anyone hear the recording of the interrogat¬ion. Wouldn’t that fall into the category of circumstantial evidence. (you have no proof yet this leads us to believe ….) yes it does and circumstantial evidence is part of the reason these two are convicted murderers.
And second there is the fact that Amanda made an immediate written retraction after the interrogat¬ion, and never lied any other time. ANY lawyer worth 2 Euros would have their client do just that!!!!!!! Case in point Joran van der Sloot NUFF SAID!!!!!!!!!!

[chuychrist]

04:22 PM on 04/03/2011

I'm amazed at the sympathy for Amanda, however I'm not impressed. Say whatever you want about her but I agree with the Judges and the Jury, she's guilty of Murder and should have gotten a life sentence. All the arguments to defend her are MOOT, she has been convicted of murder and she will lose her appeal. No doubt she will also be found guilty of the pending defamation charges. She's a sociopath and is manipulating everyone, her family, the legal system and YOU! All three accused murderers were tried and convicted and I don't feel one bit sorry for the poor-little-rich-white-american-girl. If she were a poor-black-girl almost no one would care, I speak the truth.

[Oralloy]

01:47 AM on 04/04/2011

"Say whatever you want about her but I agree with the Judges and the Jury, she's guilty of Murder and should have gotten a life sentence."

You too are going to refer to a corrupt judge as a "jury"?

At any rate, the evidence says you are wrong, and Amanda and Raffaele are innocent.

---

"All the arguments to defend her are MOOT,"

Not really. Again, the evidence is quite clear on their innocence.

---

"she has been convicted of murder and she will lose her appeal."

Note that the current judge is not like the corrupt judge in the first trial. This time the defense is actually allowed to challenge the fake evidence.

---

"No doubt she will also be found guilty of the pending defamation charges."

I remain appalled at the thought of prosecuting innocent people for daring to complain when the police beat false statements out of them.

---

"She's a sociopath and is manipulating everyone, her family, the legal system and YOU!"

Nonsense. She's an honors student who has never done any harm to anyone.

---

"All three accused murderers were tried and convicted and I don't feel one bit sorry for the poor-little-rich-white-american-girl."

Rich? Not yet. But wait until she starts suing people.

I thought the party line was that it didn't matter whether or not she is American.

[chuychrist]

05:31 PM on 04/04/2011

Are you stalking me?

[Hypocrites are Watching]

05:23 PM on 04/08/2011

And any half-way intelligen­t scientist or judge (heck person)will tell you that lack of evidence is not proof of the alternativ­e theory.

[jamelen3]

10:03 AM on 04/09/2011

She will win her appeal and you do not speak the truth. And she and her family are not rich. They are struggling just like everyone else. And if she was black would you feel differently? You shouldn't, Amanda deserves the same fair treatment in Italy as you or I do, at home or abroad. They black-balled her! What is she guilty of? Doing what exactly? She was not there, she did not touch a knife, she did not hurt Meredith, A strong man acted alone. He had sex with her, then fled the Country. They did make up stuff and told the media a lame story, even before they brought Guede back in the Country for questioning, they had already interrogated Amanda for 14 hours. She never once even implicated Guede. So if there were 3 people who ganged up on Meredith, why would Amanda have not tole police that. Instead, out of confusion, she said that another person was there, wo wasn't there, it makes perfect sense, their fabricated story makes no sense at all. After proving Guede was involved in the rape and murder, they then made it fit their story by saying it was 3 people. Instead of doing the right thing and letting them go. By then the police had already put their foor in their outh, and were too proud to admit their mistake. It is time now for a judge and jury to fit this mistake.

[Hypocrites are Watching]

10:56 AM on 04/09/2011

Lets see piss off my drug dealer who has scary connections or get the man who fired me in trouble!!! Lets weigh those options (using the mind of a young stoned {sexually ‘happy’ like all kids all over the world at that age away from home in a foreign country} …..uuhhh the jerk who fired me did it [told ya I would get you back!!! Na na naa na na naaaa] that is just one small Infinitesimal aspect of why. Not to mention “ok ok no one ever talk about this again and no matter what keep our mouths shut no one talke ok we all agree?”

[Hypocrites are Watching]

11:09 AM on 04/09/2011

Ok you don’t seem to making much sense in one post you say “Amanda tried to help in bringing a killer to justice and the system betrayed her, the media attacked her.” And then you say “ She never once even implicated Guede.” Sooooo in what possible way (in your opinion) did she try to help. Oh boy I cant wait to hear this one goody goody yipee!!

[justanotherbushhater]

04:08 AM on 04/03/2011

One question for everyone here: re: faked break-in. Why would Rudy Guede try to make it look like an outside job, what possible motive would he have? It is more reasonable to assume it was someone living in the house making it look like a stranger had entered the house and killed Meredith.

It would be great if everyone stayed logical on this issue. Also, I am really, really, really offended by remarks about "The Italians this" an "The Italians" that, as if the entire nation or race did these allegedly "horrible" actions, i.e. hitting Amanda on the side of her head. It makes such arguments seem purely partisan rather than logical and weakens them. Let's call them by their official roles and not lump them all together: "the police" "the prosecutor" "the forensic scientists" "the jury" "the lawyers" etc.

[Oralloy]

05:13 AM on 04/03/2011

There was no faked breakin.

Guede actually broke in.

It looks like an outside job because that is exactly what it was.

[jackbutler5555]

01:22 PM on 04/03/2011

Your plea for logic has my support.  I will add my plea for participants to have a better understanding of the facts.

And when you come across an Italians-this, Italians-that poster, please do chide him.

[jackbutler5555]

04:12 PM on 03/28/2011

Today's subject is the mysterious rusty bra clasp stored in a wet jar.  Now we know how important it is to the police and prosecution.  It's the only possible piece of evidence establishing the presence of Raffaele in the room where the murder took place.  So, how come it was allowed to get rusty?  Strange, isn't it?  Well, I now present several possible explanations for it.  Please select one.

1.  The clasp was rusty to begin with.

2.  Evidence experts for the police thought it was made of rust-resistant aluminum.

3.  Police ran out of dry jars.

4.  The evidence room had no roof.

5.  The jar had no top.

6.  A paid poster from the PR firm sneaked in, opened the jar, and uh wet it.

7.  They used a pickle jar but they forgot to take out all of the pickles.

8.  Mignini stored a cannoli in the jar prior to its re-appropriation.

9.  A tsunami so powerful it soaked the heck out of the Perugia police evidence room.

10.  The chain of custody document stored with it was written in lemon juice.

4.

[overcat]

05:24 PM on 03/28/2011

Cheap metal does often tend to rust.

[jackbutler5555]

07:49 PM on 03/28/2011

Especially in a wet jar.

Which makes one wonder if it was put in the wet jar -- instead of in proper storage -- to preclude further testing.  I'm inclined to wonder if that's true, given folks here who believe Sollecito is guilty who contend that the scientific police are aces at gathering, testing, and analyzing evidence. 

I also wonder why the court refused to allow the defense to try to restore the hard drive on the computers.

[ernsign]

01:59 AM on 03/29/2011

Overcat: very true!

[justanotherbushhater]

03:44 AM on 04/03/2011

Humidity?

[jackbutler5555]

01:22 PM on 04/03/2011

Yes, plenty of humidity.  It was stored in a wet jar.

[justanotherbushhater]

12:23 PM on 03/28/2011

"The banal face of evil."

[jackbutler5555]

10:39 AM on 03/28/2011

Let's discuss the rusty bra clasp.  This is a piece of evidence that the police and prosecutors proclaim link Raffaele with the murder.  It places him in the room.  It can't make him the murderer simply because his DNA/blood appears nowhere else in that room.  Rudy Guede's DNA is everywhere around the room but not any DNA from the other accused.

But back to the bra clasp.  If this "evidence" is so important, why do you suppose it was not preserved?  (Select one).

1.  The police evidence handling was so inept that the improper storage of a key piece of evidence is just one example of the mistakes they made.

2.  A paid poster from Amanda's PR firm  sneaked into the Perugia evidence room and p e e d in the jar.

3.  The Perugia police ran out of dry jars.

4.  The evidence handlers thought the bra clasp was made of rust-resistant aluminum.

5.  The evidence room didn't have a roof.

[fg159]

11:46 AM on 03/27/2011

There are many convicted people in prison today who say they are innocent. In countries that have laws and a judicial system we need to rely on the courts. Otherwise we have nothing but chaos. Can the court make a mistake? Sure it happens all the time it is not a error free system. If there is an appeal of the guilty verdict and it is overturned then she will be considered innocent.
At this time I don't consider her to be the victim. I do consider her friend that was murdered the victim.
I have not seen the movie or plan to see the movie so if she decides to sue for libel which I will assume is possible let the courts decide and not public opinion.
We are a nation of laws.

[Oralloy]

06:52 PM on 03/27/2011

"There are many convicted people in prison today who say they are innocent."

Is this a roundabout suggestion that we ignore all the evidence that Amanda and Raffaele are innocent and that the Italians knew it from the beginning?

---

"In countries that have laws and a judicial system we need to rely on the courts."

Nah. We are free to publicly condemn courts who intentionally convict innocent people.

---

"If there is an appeal of the guilty verdict and it is overturned then she will be considered innocent."

Actually, legally she is not considered guilty in Italy until after her second appeal. She has not even completed her first appeal.

And the evidence is very clear on the fact that she is innocent.

So she is considered innocent now.

---

"At this time I don't consider her to be the victim."

My standards are different. I think it is horrific to intentionally send innocent people to prison.

---

"I have not seen the movie or plan to see the movie so if she decides to sue for libel which I will assume is possible let the courts decide and not public opinion.
We are a nation of laws."

I propose we become a nation of justice.

Seeing the law used as a suggestion that it's OK to send innocent people to prison just so long as all the correct formalities are followed, is making my hair stand on end.

[fg159]

09:12 PM on 03/27/2011

I would suggest countries consider you to be the judge and jury in their criminal cases. Can you imagine the money they could save? In this country alone we could eliminate thousand of jobs in the judicial system and District attorney's office.

j

[jamelen3]

10:18 AM on 04/09/2011

They just wanted to bring in their scalp. Just as Giuliano Mignini was found guilty of abusing his power before, he did it again, and should not be above the law.

[jackbutler5555]

04:23 PM on 03/28/2011

What does relying on the courts mean to you?

Does it mean they are exempt from criticism.  I'm sure you don't mean that.

So, when a court decision is criticized, you're okay with that, right?

And you don't mind, do you, if that criticism is made irrespective of the case's appeal status, do you.  After all, as you said, it is "not an error-free system."

And if that criticism turns out to be valid, then you would agree that a wrongly accused defendant is a victim, wouldn't you.

Although we are a nation of laws, the people who enforce those laws may have fallen short.  And as an advocate of justice, you could not tolerate that.

[Max Shaw]

04:56 PM on 03/25/2011

Didnt see the movie, but I did know about it. Can anyone tell me what the outcome was? Did they actually assume that Knox killed her rooomate or did they focus on the trial?? I think its pretty underhanded to air a movie about a care thats still ongoing...It may have def. had/will have an impact on the outcome of her appeals.

[ernsign]

05:10 PM on 03/25/2011

Knox is a convicted murderer. That may be mentioned in the movie, I don 't know.

[jccourt]

08:29 PM on 03/25/2011

Amanda Knox was framed by the Perugian Authorities.

We haven't see the movie Max but we agree with you, it was underhanded to do this while the appeal is ongoing.

[Oralloy]

11:01 PM on 03/25/2011

I made a point of not seeing the movie myself, but I know the answer to your question.

The movie left the question of whether she did it as an open question.

However, they had to commit libel in order to make it look like it was even possible that Amanda was guilty, and thus now face legal action.

[jokamachi]

04:55 PM on 03/25/2011

The thrust of many of these arguments against the Italian courts would seem to accuse the judge and prosecutor of being corrupt.

How many people believe this claim of "clearly fraudulent" evidence? If so, then why is it "clearly" fraudulent?

[jackbutler5555]

05:15 PM on 03/25/2011

I focus on the frailty of the evidence.  It would take an investigation to conclude that fraud was involved.  I would point out, however, the prosecutor's story depended on conjecture too much.  So, I would think it logical to examine the motivation of bringing such a faulty case to court.

[ernsign]

05:35 PM on 03/25/2011

Thanks, jackbutler, for not adopting here the more ludicrous claims of fraud leveled against the prosecution or court.

[jokamachi]

06:03 PM on 03/25/2011

What about the evidence seemed frail to you? I'm curious to know. Also, in what way did the prosecutor engage/overindulge in conjecture?

[tck29]

05:41 PM on 03/25/2011

How many satanic sex cults do you think there are in Perugia?

The lead prosecutor seems to believe that there are dozens, and that the majority of murders in Perugia are the result of cult activities. Does that seem at all plausible? Not to me, either. The fact that he was allowed a forum for this nonsense, and is considered a legitimate officer of the court is "clearly fraudulent" to me.

[ernsign]

05:47 PM on 03/25/2011

tck29: Source, please. Thanks in advance.

[jokamachi]

06:02 PM on 03/25/2011

Don't assume that I would find it implausible. As for how many satanic sex cults exist in Perugia, I can't say one way or another. I don't know the region. I've never lived there. Maybe you know more about that than I do.

But I can say the crime seemed pretty graphic and sordid. The sort of thing one might associate with a cult-style killing. That part doesn't seem implausible to me.

[Carol Gebert]

04:46 PM on 03/25/2011

"If Amanda and Raffaele are innocent, then how did a judge and jury convict them?" - actually it happens all the time, both in Italy and in the US. There was another case recently that was almost identical. An innocent Sabina Masseri (spelling?) sits in jail, railroaded by police who forced her own father to implicate her in the murder of her cousin. It is always a woman's fault y'know!

[overcat]

10:53 PM on 03/25/2011

Well, except the "it's always a woman's fault" part, for one. Two males were also convicted in this crime, so how does that work?

[Oralloy]

06:58 PM on 03/27/2011

Well, Guede is actually guilty of the crime.

Raffaele might be thought of as an innocent bystander. They couldn't frame Amanda without also framing him, so they framed both of them.

It is certainly true that many of the people who want to frame the two for murder have an unseemly obsession over Amanda's sex life.

[jackbutler5555]

04:44 PM on 03/25/2011

Folks not aware of the effectiveness of police interrogation tactics may be unduly influenced by the existence of a confession or, as Amanda Knox puts it, "confession."  Innocent people do confess to crimes they didn't commit.  This article describes the data gathered in connection with the Innocence Project, an effort to exonerate people falsely convicted.  A very high percentage of them actually confessed to the crime they didn't commit.  Here is the data-oriented article:

http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2008/08/12/why-do-innocent-people-confess/

[Atomizer]

05:02 PM on 03/25/2011

Yeah, and how do you explain the statements she made AFTER the confession, which are also a tissue of lies and nonsense? Well? I guess you missed the entire point of the long posts below analyzing her remarks.

[jackbutler5555]

05:10 PM on 03/25/2011

I posted this not with the expectation that you and others would find it convincing.  I don't believe anything -- including a finding by the appeals court that Amanda Knox is no guilty -- will convince you. This is for people who are trying to form a conclusion by examining the arguments from both sides.

The linguistic analysis isn't admissible in courts.  They apparently think its invalid.  Imagine that.

[jackbutler5555]

07:14 PM on 03/25/2011

Forensic linguistics is not admissible in most courts.

[ernsign]

05:17 PM on 03/25/2011

That article is titled, "Why Do Innocent Confess." I'd like to see an articlel more focused on the knox case, something that would be titled, "Why Do Innocent People Confess, Then Retract Their Confession While Stating At The Same Time That They Are Not Believable, And Despite The Retraction Still Say They May Have Been In The Room Where The Murder Occured, Oh, And They Falsley Accuse Another Person Of The Murder."

[jackbutler5555]

07:15 PM on 03/25/2011

"I know you find it hard to believe."

[jccourt]

09:31 PM on 03/25/2011

Have you ever been interrogated under Duress?

[kcmookie]

02:08 PM on 03/25/2011

Got to love all the guilters, the sure are a passionate group. To bad their passion is driven by their need to tear down others. They claim those who believe Amanda and Raffaele are innocent 'cherry pick' the facts, when they are the one's who are guilty. They want to argue whether she retracted her statement immediately or not, mind you, they don't consider the very next day at the first opportunity to put it in writing as being 'immediately'. They attempt to trip you up with their 'facts', but won't bother to respond to the number of supposed facts that have already been proven false in this case. The problems with the prosecutions time line, the lack of a motive or planning, the lack of irrefutable and uncontaminated DNA evidence (knife and bra being thrown out), they bought bleach (didn't), they went shopping for sexy undies (proven false), the witnesses that even the judges do not find credible. Step by step there are issues at every turn with this case, and all you can say is "why did she confess", "why did she blame an innocent man"? Why in the world would the Perugia police with their most sensational case of all time not bother to record any of this? You guilters want her to be guilty because that is what you believe.

I believe she is innocent and am more than happy to discuss the facts of the case with anyone who has an open mind & questions.

[ernsign]

02:35 PM on 03/25/2011

I confess to a bit of passion. Convicted murderers such as knox evoke that response. Fortunately the jury did not rely on anonymous postings with odd evidentiary discussions (undies? seriously?) My passion is tempered with the knowledge that a jury looked at all the actual evidence, and then justly convicted knox of murder.

[Oralloy]

02:59 PM on 03/25/2011

Actually, the "jury" (sic) blocked the defense from exposing fraudulent evidence to scrutiny, and then convicted two people they knew were innocent.

[kcmookie]

03:24 PM on 03/25/2011

So when the conviction is overturned I can assume you will be as voracious in your response in defense of them? You tie your convictions to the courts findings, so when they justly overturn this verdict you will agree that they are innocent at that point?

I can tell you with complete sincerity that I sat down to read the Massei report with an open mind and with the intent of finding that one A-HA moment or fact that simply could not be refuted, but time and time again I found the prosecution shifting the facts to fit their claims in the context of that moment. That is something the guilty party does, and yet in the report there is none of that behavior from the defense, and yet repeated shifting from the prosecution. The only A-Ha moment I had was the sinking feeling in my stomach as I realized that Amanda and Raffaele were innocent. From the very beginning this case was flawed, and it starts with the prosecution having to massage the timeline to fit when Amanda and Raffaele supposedly have no alibi other then each other. I imagine the prosecution would have stuck with the TOD being 8:30-9ish, if it weren't for the witness that visited Raffaele at that time--from that moment on the prosecutions facts have shifted to fit Amanda and Raffaele's assumed guilt. That is just wrong.

[Crimson H]

02:41 PM on 03/25/2011

I'm surprised. You've posted many comments but you've just revealed that you don't even have the basic fact pattern down.

The bra and knife were not "thrown out"; the shop keeper's testimony that Knox was in his store, in the cleaning products/ bleach area (when she claimed she was still fast asleep at Raffaele's pad) held up under cross; so did the testimony of the lingerie shop owner about the panties shopping; Knox NEVER retracted her accusation of Lumumba (she literally WROTE that she 'stood by' her accusation); etc., etc..

What's your game?

[Oralloy]

11:32 PM on 03/25/2011

"The bra and knife were not "thrown out";"

I'm guessing the poster was referring to the latest tests further showing how bogus the evidence is.

---

"the shop keeper's testimony that Knox was in his store, in the cleaning products/ bleach area (when she claimed she was still fast asleep at Raffaele's pad) held up under cross;"

Hardly.

---

"so did the testimony of the lingerie shop owner about the panties shopping;"

As if buying new clothes when you are locked out of your home is a sign of guilt??

---

"Knox NEVER retracted her accusation of Lumumba (she literally WROTE that she 'stood by' her accusation­); etc., etc.."

Nope. She retracted it in writing the very next morning.

[DarkKarma]

01:38 PM on 03/25/2011

Personally, I can hardly wait for " Foxy Knoxy Day" in Seattle , as proclaimed by Jaba McGinn and the City Council !
Kurt, Eda and Little Amanda riding triumphantly in the open air limousine, while the jubilant Heroine does cartwheels down the street !

[ernsign]

02:14 PM on 03/25/2011

It would be great is Meredith Kercher could be there. But since she was murdered by knox, that is impossible.

[Oralloy]

02:36 PM on 03/25/2011

Nope. It wasn't Amanda (or Raffaele) who murdered her.

[jccourt]

02:41 PM on 03/25/2011

You meant since she was murdered by Guede.

God bless Dear Meredith!