Ann Coulter: NYT: DUKE LACROSSE PLAYERS KILLED MEREDITH KERCHER (Pulitzer prize in the Making?)

AnnCoulter.Com ^ | June 17, 2009 | Ann Coulter

[tlb]

>>> did I imagine it or was there an audio back then of the DA announcing charges against the innocent kids and the room erupting in the sort of cheers

Not saying that didn’t occur with the Duke case, I don’t recall it though. However that does describe an incident during some democrat conference. Hillary was the speaker and received the word MSNBC had (incorrectly) announced Karl Roves indictment. She passed this information on to the crowd and the video showed loud cheering and applause.

[cherry]

well Ann rightly assumes that a group of white preppy college students are guilty of anything and everything, so why not save the fuss and just name them...

[Rummyfan]

ANN COULTER BUMP!

[safetysign]

Those pesky Duke Lacrosse players are guilty of everything.

[alloysteel]

“America’s news coverage....is a crime.”

A statement that seems painfully obvious.

The very seams of our society appear to be bursting, and nobody knows what is going on. They certainly are not reporting the realities.

[Erin8999999]

Whether you believe Amanda Knox is guilty or innocent is related (for many people) to how you interpret the evidence (or in some people’s cases, her personality traits), and is NOT a sign of how strong of an advocate you are for Meredith Kercher’s justice. (Personally, I am not so sure. I am leaning towards ‘guilty,’ but I am also questioning the Italian system and whether there might have been corruption.) It has NOTHING to do with liberals or conservatives, and I am a little confused as to why Ann Coulter starts accusing liberals of believing someone is innocent. People are entitled to believe someone’s innocent without “being soft on crime,” or liberal, or etc. Furthermore, everyone is essentially innocent until proven guilty. Wanting a fair trial does NOT equate to ignoring justice for the victim.

I am willing to believe what Ann Coulter says about the defense spreading propaganda. HOWEVER, the prosecution side is also spreading propaganda. Newspapers and rags on the Internet are spreading character assassination crap, trying to make us believe that Amanda Knox is a bad person because she does things that normal people do (writing stories about rape, etc.) What irritates me about this case is the chaotic maze of propaganda on both sides.

[subterfuge]

HOWEVER, the prosecution side is also spreading propaganda.

Oh really? What propaganda is that? Do you mean the propaganda regarding the Times ignoring actual, documented facts like DNA evidence? That is the point of the article. The Times lies and people like you eat it up.

And what planet do you live on where "normal people" are writing "stories about rape?" The "chaotic maze" you're in is due to your being duped by the times. Good luck with that.

[mowowie]

Foxy Knoxy is toast and i feel for the parents giving up everything.

What an out of control hornball psycho. She should just plead guilty and save the parents some bucks.

i’m wondering, If the found her blood stained footprints on a scrubbed floor did they find, match, confiscate and test the shoes in question?
You would think that if they can get DNA from the scrubbed floor they would get the same frome the shoe itself.

[Forgiven_Sinner]

“. . . I am a little confused as to why Ann Coulter starts accusing liberals of believing someone is innocent. People are entitled to believe someone’s innocent without “being soft on crime,” or liberal, or etc. Furthermore, everyone is essentially innocent until proven guilty. Wanting a fair trial does NOT equate to ignoring justice for the victim.”

I'm not sure she accuses liberals in general; just pointing out the inconsistency of the NYT, comparing this case to the Duke Lacrosse team case.

I see her target more as the liberal media, epitomized by the NYT, rather than liberals in general.

[Syncro]

LOL@Foxy Knoxy

She is a hot looking babe.

There's something about murdering guys that is pretty much a turnoff though...

Then there is this:

...the house Knox and Kercher shared with two other girls in Perugia.

Now, how many guys would say, 'I'd die for a chance to live with three hot babes?"

[lewislynn]

It has NOTHING to do with liberals or conservatives, and I am a little confused as to why Ann Coulter starts accusing liberals of believing someone is innocent.

Really? You're confused why anyone would accuse liberals of believing someone is innocent? There's believing innocence and there's making excuses for the guilty calling it innocence

Interesting that of all there is to comment on here at FR you signed up just today to make just that one and only comment.

[Mark]

Add me to the ping list, but don’t tell my wife.

[jellybean]

Add me to the ping list, but don’t tell my wife.

I've added you to the list. It'll be our little secret.

[Awestruck]

Ann is completely off the mark this time... there wasn’t enough DNA evidence to make a positive ID, the knife was proven to be the wrong size to make the wounds, there is no other evidence and absolutely no motive! This girl was railroaded..they already got the drifter who did it, so why do they need to put an innocent American in jail too... smoking pot does NOT make you kill people...this is just ridiculous.

[Syncro]

This is the title of this article:

NYT: DUKE LACROSSE PLAYERS KILLED MEREDITH KERCHER

Yes, she was off. The DLPs did NOT kill Kercher.

Here's the rest of the column, but you apparantly didn't even read what is posted here with a great deal of comprehension (note the last sentence which I bolded for you):

-- Knox's bloody footprints, mixed with Kercher's blood, were found in another roommate's room, where a window had been broken to make it look like there had been a break-in -- a theory discounted immediately by investigators. Knox's footprints, too, had been scrubbed but were discovered with Luminol.

-- Kercher's bloody bra strap at the crime scene that had abundant amounts of Sollecito's DNA on it.

Egan explains away the devastating DNA evidence by denying it exists. Delusionally, he writes:

"(I)f Knox and Sollecito had killed Kercher, and were in that blood-splattered room, why is there no physical trace from them on the body? A print? A swap of DNA somewhere? After all, Kercher had died after a brutal strangulation, evidence of considerable struggle, with knife pokes in the neck."

Read the trial transcript, Matlock.

Egan does acknowledge the bloody bra strap covered with Sollecito's DNA, but dismissively writes: "(T)hey discovered Kercher's clasp nearly six weeks after the murder -- a highly suspect and tainted piece of evidence from a contaminated crime scene."

Even the defense isn't complaining about the amount of time that passed before the bra strap was tested. The bra strap was found during the initial search of the crime scene -- which was promptly sealed off -- and then was collected for testing during the second search of the sealed crime scene some weeks later.

True, the defense has tried to minimize all the evidence by throwing out the old "contamination" chestnut, but without proof of systematic contamination of the evidence, this is just a boilerplate defense, much like "but he hit me first." (Next the defense will be vowing to look for the "real killer.")

Egan also dismissed the knife at Sollecito's house with Knox's DNA on the handle and Kercher's DNA on the blade, claiming the knife contained only "a tiny amount of DNA that might match that of the victim." (I know I'm constantly finding small amounts of other people's DNA on the blades of my kitchen knives.)

When the defense tried the "small amount of DNA" argument at trial, forensic biologist Patrizia Stefanoni replied, "If the blood evidence is a positive match, it is not always important how much there is -- and the material on the blade matches the victim."

Even the accused murderess has a better theory to explain the DNA on the knife. Knox wrote in her prison diary: "I think it is possible Raffaele went to Meredith's house, raped her, then killed her and then when he got home, while I was sleeping, he pressed my fingerprints on the knife."

These are only a few examples of the wildly deceptive account of the Amanda Knox trial printed in the Times. The reason this is important is that this is how the Times portrays all criminal prosecutions: Ruthless prosecutor railroads innocent bystanders for mysterious reasons. (Unless the victim is a late-term abortionist or the accused is a Duke lacrosse player.)

The only difference in the Knox case, compared to run-of-the-mill criminal cases, is that the copious foreign reporting on the case makes it child's play to see how egregiously the Times is lying this time.

I don't know if Knox murdered her roommate, but I am sure that America's news coverage of this case is a crime.

COPYRIGHT 2009 ANN COULTER
DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE
1130 Walnut, Kansas City, MO 64106