Testimony a game-changer in Amanda Knox's favor?
Testimony in Amanda Knox's appeal of her murder conviction in Italy may be a game-changer in favor of the college student from Seattle, an expert and Knox's sister say, and her sister says it left her thinking Amanda would be coming home soon.
Knox, now 23, and ex-boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito were convicted last year of murder and sexual assault in the 2007 death of Briton Meredith Kercher, with whom Knox shared a cottage in Perugia while attending college. Knox and Sollecito were sentenced to 26 and 25 years in prison, respectively.
Knox and Sollecito have always denied wrongdoing, insisting they weren't at the cottage the night Kercher was killed, but were at Sollecito's house.
On Saturday, key prosecution eyewitness, Antonio Curatolo, who'd said he saw Knox near the crime scene the night of the murder, admitted to heroin addiction and confused crucial details from the night of the murder, including dates.
"He basically blew the whole prosecution's case right then and there," Knox's sister, Deanna Knox, told "Early Show" co-anchor Chris Wragge. "He got his dates mixed up. He said he was on drugs at the time. He was recalling that people were in costumes on Halloween, which was actually the day after. So he pretty much blew every credibility that he had."
Asked if that was a game-changer, Deanna replied, "Yeah, it really was. It was one of those moments for me where I was like, 'Wow, my sister could really be out soon!' Which is really exciting. And I know our lawyers were happy. And our family was happy."
Deanna conceded that Amanda is "still really nervous about the appeals process. She thought that she should have been out the first time (at the conclusion of her trial). So she's a little nervous still, that they're not gonna to get it quite right. But she seems confident. She's confident in her innocence, and she was just really happy to see her family. So it was nice to see her that way."
CBS News legal analyst Jack concurred that the testimony could be a game-changer, pointing out, "You've got to remember the system is very different over there. Her appeal is essentially a second trial, new jurors, new judges, and the conviction was based on circumstantial evidence. You know, direct evidence is either you confess to a crime or somebody says, 'I saw them committing the killing.' Circumstantial is bits and pieces that you put together to form a picture. And here, the first time around, the picture was enough for her to be convicted. But they're starting to chip away at that picture here. And significantly."
Curatolo, Wragge noted, has been a key witness in a number of different murder trials. "It looks like he's been kind of there for the prosecution on a number of different times. How did they not know that he would..."
"That's a tough question to answer," Ford said, "because ... this time around, they've challenged him that he had the wrong date, he had wrong details, and admitted to being a heroin addict at the time. You know what? As a prosecutor, I had to rely on some pretty shaky witnesses sometimes. I don't think I ever had somebody such as this.
"When you take away a so-called eyewitness like that, that's a significant loss for the prosecution."
Ford also observed that, "The court ordered that (new forensic tests on evidence) be done by independent experts. Not by the prosecutors or defense. And (those experts reportedly) raising questions whether there's even nearly enough evidence, DNA evidence on this knife blade (that was the alleged murder weapon) to point to Amanda Knox. ... If you pull that out of the case, if you pull the eyewitness out of the case -- or at least raise significant questions about the two of them -- you've put them in a situation now where Amanda Knox -- if I'm her attorney, I'm a lot more confident now that she might be coming home."
- How to stop junk mail - forever
- Bill Nye's Withered Romance
- Dad Punishes Daughter with Free Babysitter Ad Play Video
- Best Low-Tech Cell Phones Suitable for Seniors
- Terms to Never Use in Your Resume
- Legit Work-from-Home Websites - and the Scams
- Deadly grizzly bear attack at Yellowstone Park Play Video
- Boy in pink nail polish sparks online outrage
Is this another name change, jc perhaps? Love the way you initial your comment as though it makes it more authentic!
Meredith was fatally wounded in the most horrific way but it was made clear at her postmortem that her wounds were not consistent with her arms having being free so that she was able to use them to defend herself in this attack when there would be many more knife wounds on her arms. Her wounds were consistent with her having been held by her assailants. Did the defense lawyers raise issues about the findings resulting from the postmortem at the Appeal when they had the opportunity to?
Was knox examined by a doctor immediately after the victim's body was found? I only know that once arrested she was sent to the prison doctor who questioned her about the mark on her neck, so it's not true that she was unmarked and please don't go over the hickey statement again - it's really too late for that.
Interestingly, the one thing that did go missing from Filomena's room was some make-up. Some foundation to cover that hickey/other mark perhaps?
There is certainly evidence that knox bled at the crime scene. There is forensic evidence that knox and sollecito were at the scene of the crime at the time of the murder. The appeal was the place to challenge all of the forensic evidence not just two aspects of it but the defense teams chose not to do that which would mean that it remains in evidence as I understand it.
Who returned to the crime scene and moved the body, just for one important piece of evidence that you continue to ignore?
Good for you on your beliefs. Mine remain unchanged.
Rudy Guede has not gotten away with his part in this crime. As for not fleeing, knox and sollecito did not even take their stated planned trip to Gubbio on the day after the crime when they were lingering between sollecito's apartment and the the cottage, supposedly with the unnecessary mop and bucket. The deed of reporting any suspicious findings that day was left to the finders of the victim's phones.They at least beat knox and sollecito to the task.
Fleeing the scene was not part of their plan that morning as Amanda had decided on returning to the cottage and then dragging sollecito back with her to discover the "break-in". Her story would have been a little more feasible if she had 'discovered' the break-in after taking her shower that morning as at least that might explain some of her bare foot tracks in Filomena's room.
sollecito also had Guede's excrement firmly in mind and wanted to make sure they didn't disappear down the toilet without notice!
As for "innocent people don't flee when innocent" - it certainly doesn't take a rocket scientist to concoct a sentence like that! But even possibly guilty people don't flee when one of them lives at the crime scene - much better to stick around and point the finger in another direction!
Rudy Guede was disassociating from the others at the scene when he made the "amanda wasn't home" remark in a Skype call but that didn't help any of the perpetrators. It certainly wasn't what he said in his letter to his lawyers which he stood by in court recently. More important is sollecito's disassociation from knox which has been maintained to this day by his defense lawyers. He said that knox wasn't at his home as she claimed at the time of the murder and indeed, that she asked him to lie for her. No need to rally support for him then but you knox supporters continue to tie them both together as you think that gives her a better chance of getting off. Perhaps you also think that supporting sollecito may bring his defense team around to giving more support to knox but they continue to look out for sollecito only.
As always I will rely on the court's decision in this case as long as it is not subject to outside influence which is not always the case in countries where judges rely on voters opinions for their position.
Meredith Kercher had 47 defense wounds & bruises on her body. There is no evidence that Amanda even had as much as a scratch on her and there isn't any forensic evidence that she was even in the room when Meredith Kercher was brutally murdered. I am completely confident that Amanda will receive a complete Aquittal on Sept. 15th, 2011 of her conviction and will be released immediately upon that Appellate Verdict. I also believe that Raffaele Sollecito had nothing to do with this crime.
Point Two: Suspect Rudy Guede FLED to Germany after this crime .Amanda & Raffaele FLED NOWHERE ...Why - because innocent people don't Flee when they are innocent. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that Amanda and Raffaele had nothing to do with this crime. Rudy Guede has said Amanda wasn't home when it occurred. -KJ
Try this
Crime number 071830624.
My recommended reading list would be the Massei report and most revealing of all - the Micheli report produced in Italy late January 2011. This is the reasoning behind the court's decision after the final appeal of Rudy Guede and reveals unequivocally why the court believes that Rudy Guede did not act alone but does not imply whether the evidence against Knox and Sollecito will pass the test at appeal. The English translation will be on the internet soon I believe.
Just a bit of information that I hadn't heard of before was about a couple who bumped into Rudy Guede as he was running from the cottage on that night. This appears to confirm what 'ear' witness Nara Capazelli heard that night so all this talk of her being a deaf psychiatric case to discredit her evidence may well be irrelevant. We should all look out for this report as the evidence from that case can now be used in the Knox and Sollecito case. Micheli was also the judge who wrote the report on why Knox and Sollecito were sent to trial for the murder of Meredith Kercher so this should also be available in full on the net in English.
I for one will be reading these reports and no amount of propaganda would deter me from doing so. I'll probably get some more abuse for saying that but I feel the need to be as informed as the Italian people are about the truth of this case because that is what I've always felt the court was trying to achieve.
Please read this report, and see for yourself, How they did it! thanks.
Amanda and Rafaelle were not there when this most horrendous crime occurred, they are Innocent, and have been in jail for almost 4 years. it is Shameful. thanks.
The improper interrogations (Coercion to sign Bogus confession) and the missing recordings of those interrogations.
The irresponsible handling and use of evidence, Italian forensic not following proper Protocols in retrieving said evidence, Misrepresentation of evidence (there was nothing but Starch on the allege knife, murder weapon, improper storage of evidence ex: the bra clasp stored in a jar of liquid.
The dismissal of exonerating factors, unethical practices. as in losing the content of computer hard drives by a so called expert.
Prosecutorial misconduct, gross unprofessionalism.
Sensationalistic media smearing: Lies and innuendos released to the media from day one
Character assassination.
Unreliable eye witness. Curatolo's, even more unreliable so called ear witness Nara
Use of hunches, instead of relying on solid Facts, as in Giobbi's statements "we don't need evidence to determine Guilt".
The Italian Supreme court use of the comment "I was there" in the wrong Context, to justify that Rudy Guede did not act alone.
The appearance on the internet of Dubious websites like TJMK (true justice for Meredith Kercher) and PMF (Perugia Murder File) promoting those lies and innuendos as Truth to justify the unjustifiable, to recruit and convince unsuspecting readers that Amanda and Rafaelle's are guilty, In sum to deflect attention from the fact that the Perugian authorities totally Bungled this case.
And there is so much more. Stay tuned ...
This is not the complicated case the media and the prosecution have made it out to be. It's a very tragic, but very simple case of rape and murder. Two innocent people have spent 3+ years in an Italian prison for a crime they did not commit. Enough already...RELEASE THEM NOW!!!
Just a reminder joancj that the whole cottage is the crime scene not just Meredith's bedroom and it's not the prosecution's case that counts it's the court's decision. Let's wait for the Appeal decision before we release them - that would be my advice. Seems like this case might be too complex for you to understand.
Version 1 was also Amanda's version she was with Raffaele all night and they were at a party.
Version 2 differs from version 4 significantly in that Raffaele no longer supports Amanda's version as he says that either she was not there all night, she came back at about 1 am or that he does not remember her being there then. Either way he refuses to supply her with an alibi. It is only her unsupported claim that she was there all night with Raffaele. This is hardly the same version. The pressure she was under when supplying version 3 of events that night is to be expected in a murder investigation when inconsistencies exist in their stories but the toughest pressure comes from having to maintain lies.
I have already given my opinions on that night of questioning and Amanda's naming of Patrick but this evidence was not supposed to have been used in her court case. I must then assume that the one year sentence given to Amanda for naming Patrick came from his remaining in jail for two weeks without her retracting her story about him or because of what she said the next day. There was so much dealt with in the one trial but this part stands out for me. She was defended I assume on this point.
Enough already...this is not a complicated case. What you have here is a clear and irrefutable case of rape and murder committed by one perpetrator, Rudy Guede. Amanda Knox became involved in this because the prosecutor, Mignini, decided to create an international frenzy for his own aggrandizement and Guede went along with the lies so he could reduce his sentence. Without Amanda's presence and Mignini's bizarre and hallucinatory scenario, this case would never have gotten worldwide attention. Raffaele Sollecito, who happened to be involved with Amanda at the time, was simply collateral damage. This is a case of misinformation, misrepresentation and lies, lies and more lies on the part of the Italian police, the Italian prosecutorial staff and the forensic "experts"...period. Meanwhile two innocent people have been sitting i an Italian prison for +3 years for a crime they had NOTHING to do with...Perugia injustice. I recommend you read (1) "Murder In Italy" by Candace Dempsey, (2) "The Monster of Perugia" by Dr. Mark Waterbury and (3) "Injustice in Perugia" by Bruce Fisher...and if you have more time on your hands and want an honest portrait of Prosecutor Mignini, also read "The Monster of Florence" by Douglas Preston
You mean the whole investigation was a lied and there was no clean up??? PLEASE!!!
YOU HAVE CONFUSED YOURSELF. YOU SUGGESTED that Amanda would feel that if she implicated an innocent man, it would be okay because he would have a solid alibi.
MY ARGUMENT WAS THAT IF SHE WAS UNDER SUCH PRESSURE THAT SHE WOULD NAME A TOTALLY INNOCENT MAN THEN SHE WOULD NOT BE REASONING THAT HE'LL BE OK BECAUSE HE'S GOT AN ALIBI. In my opinion she was looking for a scapegoat because she didn't have an alibi and she didn't want the police to get to Rudy Guede because he might name her. It has already been said - just read it again.
HERE IS YOUR COMMENT:-
"Of course, neither Amanda nor Patrick had anything to do with the murder, but Patrick had airtight alibi. Amanda certainly knew he had this alibi because of their text messaging and would never have tried to implicate him without police pressure."
As for your first point there were pre-trial hearings to ensure that the accused were not being held arbitrarily but that there was sufficient reason for them to be held and also in the case of Amanda - she was considered to be a high flight risk. They were represented by lawyers at these hearings but under the Italian system I don't believe that the accused has a right to a lawyer until the first hearing.
There were several lies told before any police interrogation. You seem to be in denial about these but I will just say that the issue of Meredith's locked bedroom door which YOU declared to be a NON-ISSUE was taken to be a very central issue by the court and according to the court, by Amanda herself. Having made that statement about the locked door on the 2nd November she contradicted its significance in her email to 25 people in the US on 4th November 07. This is in the Massei report which you can access in English on the internet.
I asked myself many times why Amanda did not mention Rudy Guede's name when she was being interrogated by the police? She mentioned Patrick's name, instead. You have a good point! In a murder investigation everything is an ISSUE, every little detail, of course...
* sleep depravation
* denying food and water
* separation of friends
* lies about your friends statements
* having the witness offer alternative possibilities
* terrifying witness by taking them back to the murder site
* offering rewards to witness who give answers that the police like
* constant repeating the same question repeatedly
* threatening to keep the witness in prison for long duration
* striking the witness
* pressing the witness to include others in the situation
* misinterpreting vague references ("So You Later")
* pretending to have evidence that does not exist (Negro hair in a hand)
* failing to provide a qualified translator AND
* recording only parts of statements causing frustration of the witness.
LOOK at this link and then ask yourself if you truthfully could withstand a professional interrogation, like Knox received.
==============================================================
Compelling demonstration of how a false confession is extracted:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkLHXKHb1Vc&NR=1&feature=fvwp
=================================================================
The Italian police are expert at dealing with Mafia Don's. Knox was no match.
All this led to coerced testimony, which led to an unfair conviction
Moreover, the bad news is that she continues to be locked in an HIV infested, sweltering (up to 104 degrees F in mid summer with a bug infestation if the window is open) cell the size of a small walk-in closet.
Amanda can expect the Italians to continue to attempt to save face by stalling the appeals trial, by missing dates, by going to court but one day a week, by taking the summer off from hearings and by letting Monica Napoleoni pick and choose which hearings she cares to attend.
The Italians will also extend Amanda Knox's torture by pressing the slander trial and jailing her in a parallel situation to Mignini's. That is, she will serve time and he will not. Welcome to Italy.
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. She needs encouragement as she returns to court. It's frustrating and mentally exhausting. Let's send her a message of courage and hope.
Let's flood her cell with cards and letters of encouragement on or before July 9, her birthday. Please mail by the end of June. Packages are NOT allowed into the prison. Get a card and put $.98 postage on it.
Mail it to:
Amanda Knox
c/o Casa Circondariale di Perugia
Strada Pievaiola
06 100 Capanne (PG)
Italy
Bless you!
You bring up some interesting points, but your analysis seems to suggest that events could have seemingly happened the way you lay out. But is your version compelling in court where one is innocent until proven guilty. It seems more reasonable to believe that the police who interrogated Amanda extensively over four days, assembled 12 interrogators to interrogate her in the middle of the night, refused her an attorney, told her she would go to jail for 30 years if she didn't stop lying and forgot to videotape (as required by law) the key interrogation in Perugia's most important murder trial in decades and had her sign a confession in a language she didn't understand actually did assume her text message to Patrick suggested a meeting later that night and told her to imagine how she would behave if she were in the apartment during the murder. Her published note the following day also suggest this is true.
I don't think, as you suggest, that Amanda would feel that if she implicated an innocent man, it would be okay because he would have a solid alibi. Once in jail, she was certainly frightened by the Perugian police/justice system. Why would she risk coming to the defense of a man these police said committed the murder. She would only upset them further. If only we could view those interrogation tapes!
There was No stage brake in, glass shards were found deep inside the room means that the glass had to have been shattered by a projectile coming from the outside.
Question: Where do you get your informations concerning this case?
1) "There was no cleanup." It was proven that there was one. The blood stain (naked footprint) on the mat in the bathroom (compatible with Raffaele Sollecito's foot) indicates that other bloody footprints existed between Meredith Kercher's room and the bathroom and were subsequently removed. As for Rudy Guede's bloody shoe prints (proving that he left the house directly from Meredith Kercher's room to the door without stopping anywhere), they may have been left there on purpose. Also, several footprints with Amanda's and Meredith's blood mixed were found thanks to Luminol but were not visible with a naked eye, indicating once again that there was a cleanup.
2) "There was no staged break-in." Even though it may have not been entirely proven that the window was broken from inside Filomena Romanelli's room, it was still proven that it was a staged break-in, because the glass shards were over the clothes that had been spread on the floor. So whether the stone was used from inside or thrown from outside does not change the fact that it was a staged break-in.