She's home now Jim. Let it go!
Posted on 10/08/2011 11:47:10 AM PDT by Drew68
There are dozens of reasons that Amanda Knox's and Raffaele Sollecito's convictions for murder were overturned in Perugia, Italy today.
Here are the 10 of the most compelling.
10. No motive. Amanda Knox was a typical college student on a study-abroad trip in Italy, and was, by all accounts, having the time of her life. Convincing her boyfriend (of about a week) and a complete stranger to kill her roommate, Meredith Kercher, would have benefited Knox is no way imaginable, other than to bring her good times in Italy to a screeching halt.
9. A case built entirely on character. With an utter lack of physical evidence tying Knox and Sollecito to the murder, prosecutors instead attacked her character. Knox was called a "she-devil", a "spell-casting-witch", "evil incarnate" and all manner of colorful terms, each of which had no legal merit and was used only to get an emotional response from the jury. These kind of techniques would never fly in an American court. Yet because of this method and because of some strange behavior which was seized on by the media, Knox's character went on trial, instead of evidence. Fortunately, on appeal, evidence suddenly became important once again.
8. A criminal prosecutor. Italian prosecutor Giuliano Mignini is, in nearly all aspects, a horrible human. This is a man who once arrested a journalist and falsely accused him of being the serial killer that he was writing about. He's been accused of having journalists beat up for writing negative things about him and of using interrogation techniques that might be straight out of Dick Cheney's handbook. Mignini was convicted of abusing his office last year and given a suspended sentence of 16 months in jail.
7. No murder weapon. Prosecutors in the case said that a kitchen knife found in the home of Raffaele Sollecito was the weapon used in the murder. Further review by independent experts, however, concluded that there was no way that this knife made the wounds found on Kercher.
6. Irresponsible media. During Knox's original trial, tabloids around the world (most blatantly in the UK and Italy) seized on every salacious report of supposed character flaws to be found in Knox and Sollecito. Naming her "Foxy Knoxy" after an old soccer nickname, the rags ran photos of Knox at parties, and went into detail about purchases of lingerie and sex toys, claiming that an adult woman in college who was sexually active must therefore be capable of rape and murder.
5. No criminal history. Though it's possible that a person with no criminal history whatsoever might one day decide to conspire with two other people she barely knows to rape and murder a roommate, it's much more probable that that simply wouldn't happen. For Knox, a first-rate student, athlete and all-around good person, it's hard to imagine why she would suddenly throw that all away to commit a pointless murder.
4. A guilty person already convicted. As opposed to Knox and Sollecito, the evidence implicating Ivorian drifter Rudy Guede is rock solid. His DNA was found all over the crime scene. He admitted to being there the night of the murder. And he has an extensive criminal history. Indeed, all the evidence points to Guede, and it took very little time for a judge to convict him. Somehow, however, prosecutors convinced themselves that other people must have been involved, so they didn't rest until they convicted Knox and Sollecito as well.
3. No confession. With great emphasis prosecutors had used the supposed confession of Amanda Knox to prove once and for all that she was responsible for the murder. That confession, however, was the result of hours of forced interrogation in which no attorney was present for Knox and the prosecution reportedly invented dozens of possible scenarios for what happened, until Knox agreed to one.
2. No witnesses. The only witness to identify Knox and Sollecito being specifically at the murder scene was one man, Antonio Curatolo. He said he saw them talking near the crime scene. The problem is, that witness couldn't even remember what day he saw the pair speaking and, furthermore, is a homeless heroin addict whose ability to recall important details is highly suspect.
1. No DNA evidence. The DNA evidence that originally put Knox and Sollecito behind bars would have never been admitted into a U.S. court. The samples were too small and too contaminated, and when an independent panel of forensic scientists viewed the evidence they found more than 50 critical errors in how it was collected, tested and stored. In short, there was no DNA evidence linking Knox and Sollecito to the crime.
My dad emails me on DWTS updates in the US and said that Nancy Graves said Amanda Knox was guilty. I’ve read about her (Nancy Grace) and to me she’s no better/different than that Italian prosecutor. Like NG was intimate with the prosecution evidence (the lack thereof) details??????
The case against her was nothing more than the prosecutor’s wet dream. The problem for her is that the lies, gossip, rumors and innuendoes are all that many people remember.
This editorial makes a good case that Amanda Knox was convicted on emotion instead of evidence. If that is so, I’m pleased the Italian appeals court got it right but as is always the way, only Amanda Knox (and the other two people charged) really knows what happened. I accept the court verdict and hope Miss Knox goes on to enjoy a pleasant life.
She's home now Jim. Let it go!
Mrs. 40 managed to gain control of the TV remote long enough to force me to watch a movie about this case. In the beginning it painted Knox as a cold-hearted conspirator who was emotionless about her roommate’s brutal murder. But in the end and during the trial process it painted a different picture and convinced me she may have been wrongly convicted.
I heard that you were the one who did it, but only you know what really happened, so I hope you enjoy a pleasant life.
Accusation is the same as guilt, you know.
This won’t please the “hang ‘em high” crowd, since they’ve already decided.
I haven't paid all that much attention to the details of the case but I have looked them over.
I did not keep up at all with the media frenzy. However, the media frenzy must have done it's job because, on another FR thread, opinions seemed to be extremely passionate that she WAS guilty but no reasons were given.
To me, convicting somebody on the basis of her own DNA being on a kitchen knife in her own kitchen in her own apartment seems rather flimsy. On that basis, all of us are guilty if a murder is ever committed in our own house while we are away.
I’m glad you reposted, I didn’t read it the first time.
Let me tell you, I’m Italian. I wouldn’t want to be defending myself in an Italian court for ANY REASON. We are a very emotional bunch who love theories and character assassinations. This case had legs because Amanda Knox was American, young, pretty, a partier, and there was some sex in it. Great soap opera UNLESS you are Amanda Knox.
I will be careful if I ever hear her speak about any case, in the future.
In this case I'll rely on the learned opinion of Ann Coulter, and not on the MSM and the propaganda machine run by poor, widdle Amanda's lawyers.
Wrongly convicted? There are remedies. Like the wrongly convicted O.J. Simpson, she can sue the state to compensate her for all the pain and suffering, and like our beloved O.J. she will win, won't she? I am waiting. Crickets.
I’d blame diversity, collective white Italian guilt and fear of the race card being used when they charged only a young black male with a crime that bears evidence of him being guilty as the reason they pursued diverse others for who there was no motive or evidence of guilt. Also power lust and irrational delusional thinking caused by liberal socialist belief. Basically they were trying to even the guilty field and assuage their own guilt that this particular criminal happened to be black. Not sure if I’m making sense, but its difficult to make sense of such lunacy.
“Interrogation techniques out of Dick Cheneys playbook.”
It just never stops.
Amanda has some culpability in that she let herself be manipulated into implicating an innocent man by the Italian police. However the chances that an attractive young woman with no criminal history or gang affiliations from a family affluent enough to fund her schooling in the romantic, beautiful county of Italy would stab to death another attractive young woman is completely implausable unless there was some powerful motives. It is crazy.
Of course the drifter from Africa whose sperm was found inside the body of the victim would be a likely suspect anywhere. Most of the time the simplest explanation is the most likely. The man from a culture where women are valued little more than cattle raped and killed the victim after she resisted his advances. Motive oportunity and hard evidence... It is amazing to me that the authorities pursued any other theory.
Accusation is the same as guilt, you know.
Your cynicism is unwarranted. Unlike some, this case was very low on my list of things to be concerned about but in the aftermath of the acquittal it appears that Amanda Knox was wrongly convicted. Because I am not omniscient I cannot know to a certainty whether she committed the crime or not and neither can you or anyone else. I simply acknowledged the fact that the Italian appeals court reviewed the evidence and found Knox to be not guilty of the crime she was accused of. That being the case, I hope she can put her life back together.
Your snide comment that infers Knox was wrongly accused and that my simply accepting the court's verdict and wishing the woman a good life is somehow not robust enough an acknowledgment of her vindication assumes an innocence that, in my opinion, only God can know for certain. However, you seem to think otherwise. That's your prerogative. I choose to take a more nuanced view based on the reality that, as humans, we are fallible. These comments are based on individual opinion and as such, will always contain a degree of subjectivity. I still wish young Amanda Knox a pleasant life. If that isn't good enough, so be it.
Well thank G-d she’s home. Italian courts sure are a mess. I wonder how many innocent people are in their primitive jails.
Exactly the impression I got when I looked into the details of the case. I'm somewhat abashed to admit, though, that initially I simply assumed they were guilty. I think this is because I was applying American standards of criminal investigation and jurisprudence, and looking at things only on the surface.
I feel badly, too, for poor Raffaele. One minute he's having the time of his life with a sweet-looking American babe, the next thing he knows he's sharing a cell with Big Bruno.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.