Five inmates defend Amanda Knox during appeal
Amanda Knox arrives in the Perugia, Italia courthouse June 18, 2011 for her appeal trial. Knox was sentenced in December 2009 to 26 years in prison for the murder of her British roommate Meredith Kercher. She has repeatedly protested her innocence. / TIZIANA FABI/AFP/Getty Images
In Perugia, Italy, five witnesses are about to speak out in defense of Amanda Knox, the American who is in prison for killing her roommate in 2007. However, some are now questioning the witnesses' reliability.
CBS News Correspondent Charlie D'Agata reported there's plenty of courtroom drama as five serving inmates are coming forward to provide crucial inside information about the case.
But, D'Agata reported, prosecutors are doing everything they can to say these witnesses are hardened criminals who can't be trusted.
D'Agata reported on "The Early Show on Saturday Morning" that Amanda Knox looked composed and was dressed conservatively as she made the familiar journey into the Italian courtroom from the prison cell that's been her home for the past three-and-a-half years.
The new witnesses say she and former boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito are innocent of the murder of British student Meredith Kercher. A third man, Rudy Guede, has also been convicted of the murder.
The first witness to take the stand was convicted child killer Mario Alessi, a fellow inmate who said Rudy Guede told him that his friend killed Kercher.
Chris Mellas, Amanda Knox's stepfather, told CBS News, "We're hoping more truth comes out that these stories about Rudy and him speaking while in prison to the fact that Amanda had nothing to do with this, that it's proven in court."
But that's just one version, D'Agata reported. A second witness - convicted mobster Luciano Aviello - insists his bother murdered Kercher during a botched break-in.
Pictures: Amanda Knox: Case timeline
Pictures: Verdict in Italy
Today's testimonies are the latest twist in Knox's lengthy and ongoing appeal process. The 24-year-old Seattle student and her former boyfriend were convicted 18 months ago for the fatal stabbing of 21-year-old Kercher in the bedroom of the house they shared in the Italian mountain village of Perugia. She's serving a 26-year jail sentence, but in recent months, there have been growing doubts over the strength of her conviction.
A final decision in Knox's appeal is expected in the fall, but key to the case is the strength of the DNA. Lawyers say in terms of the murder weapon there was so little of Knox's DNA on it, it should never have been used as evidence in the first place.
Amanda Knox's parents, Edda Mellas and Kurt Knox, appeared on "The Early Show" with more on the case.
Kurt Knox said the new witnesses aren't that important to his daughter's case.
"It's more wrapped around, really, the DNA evidence that's going to be brought to the trial on the 30th of June," he said. "But you know, it's interesting that these inmates are coming forward at the risk of additional jail time, if they're, you know, slandering somebody per se, so that's kind of key."
"Early Show" co-anchor Rebecca Jarvis asked Kurt Knox about what he expects from the independent review of the DNA evidence involved in the case.
He replied, "My belief is that the accuracy of the first DNA set of tests that were done by the forensic police are going to come back as not being reliable by these independent experts and that's what we're really looking forward to."
Edda Mellas said lawyers are making progress in her daughter's case "little by little."
"They've been chipping away," Mellas said. "But I mean we really felt like in the first trial, even in the first trial, that there was no evidence, you know, that was brought forth to convict her. So you know, that surprised us, that they just don't give up, they keep going at it, because they believe in her and they know she's innocent."
Jarvis pointed out there have been reports that the Italian president himself is following his daughter's case.
Kurt Knox said, "It puts another eye on this particular case, and the fact it's so high-profile and so, you know, really wrong, and you know, having somebody keep an eye on it, I think, is just that much more beneficial to the result."
Mellas added, "It's not just the president. There have been lawmakers or you know, legislators in Italy who have all come out and said, 'Something's not right there. This needs to be looked at.' The president said, 'Yes' he's watching, it can only help."
As for Knox herself, her mother said she's doing everything she needs to survive behind bars.
"We tell her to stay strong," she said. "She gets huge messages of support from all over the world and she's really grateful for all of those, as are we, and we believe the truth will come out and that she'll be freed."
- 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
1. cops think everyone is guilty. Thats right, all or most all cops think every car that passes them, every person that looks at them, every one who avoids them is a hardened criminal. Many, many cops have told my over and over - everyone has something there hiding and most likely its illegal.
2. Contrary to popular belief -trueth is harder to defend. Typically I have no retort when falsely accused. I basically stand there with my hands apart going ah,but but but... The reason is because we are taught that trueth stands on its own and needs no defense. Thats where we get - if you have nothing to hide then what are you worried about? Its the people who get very indignant that seem to be hiding things. I hide the trueth behind my anger of the accusation. I have proved this sevral times to my father and his co-horts but they just stand there with there arms apart going ah, um but but but...
However, I do think this girl DID play a role in this particular crime but MR/MRsLiamquin's assessment seems to based more on the 'look at the guilty response' (everyones guilty - cop) rather than actual evidence. Arrest 'em all and let their wallets sort it out!
Just sayin' - kevin
Well let me ask you a question: have you ever been questioned by 12 police officers for 8 hours without a break in a language you barely understand about an incident you weren't even present at Harry? Believe me, next day you'd believe you'd actually been there too, and that your memories of being somewhere else at the time had actually all been nothing but a Dorothy job. This kind of enforced sensory information reorganisation, complete with enforced redeployment of mental imagery attaching to various experiences at specific past events, and resulting in the victim's utter confusion leading to their literal, psychological reassignment of certain facts relating to the events such as where they were and what they were doing, is commonly reported to have been experienced by victims of the interrogation methods used at Guantanamo Bay by US military interrogators. The combination of extreme stress and sensory deprivation brought about by crowding the subject for hours at a time in a confined space while firing multiple questions at them without regard to their inability to understand exctly what is being said to them, results in the subject's total subservience and willingness to agree with anything which is suggested to them Harryquin.
After 8 hours of that sort of treatment from her Perugian police interrogators, a twenty year old Linguistics student who hitherto had thought a hot night in was spent smoking a little grass, listening to the Beatles and reading Harry Potter in German, was rapidly transformed into someone completely at their mercy. They had merely to suggest to her then that Patrik had done the killing in order to elicit her complete concurrence.
And on the subject of task-orientated methods which employ abuses of language to get results, at the court of appeal, what method exactly are the prosecution going to suggest to the court that Amanda (who spoke no Italian), used to persuade Rudy (who spoke no English), to brutally murder Meredith -- mime?
Criminal? A little further on in this statement, and more poignantly written in its conclusion, Amanda writes: ''Why did I think of Patrik?'' And then: ''Who is the REAL murderer? This is particularly important because I don't feel I can be used as condemning testimony in this instance.''
Not only does she refute here, the statements about Patrik she had made under extreme duress the previous evening, (and don't forget that it was Mignini's police team interrogators who had originally suggested that Patrik was the killer - not Amanda), she goes on to express a keen interest in helping the police to find the REAL killer. Hardly the intent of a criminal who has carried out a murder on drugs.....
The long Knox statement, which she produced voluntarily and under no duress whatsoever, comes complete with the words 'In these flashbacks that I'm having, I see Patrik as the murderer..' There is lots more made-up nonsense in which Knox hedges her bets, 'just in case' the police have discovered a bit more than she would like.
This is 100 per cent incriminating in itself, but remember Knox waited at least two weeks before removing her allegation against Lumumba (even admitting in a taped phone call home to Mom - who should have reported it to the police - that she knew what she had done) In fact she only agreed to 'clear' Lumumba when he had a watertight alibi. Nothing to do with the police interogations - just desperation to get away with an abominable crime. That's how criminals, including those who have carried out murders in the heat of the moment while on drugs, are.