Kercher & Knox Closing Arguments

To everyone who can speak Italian and/or has the patience to decipher Google translations, here are the transcriptions of the Kercher’s attorneys’ and my attorneys’ closing arguments. These occurred on the 16th and 17th of December 2013, respectively.

16 Dec 2013 - Closing arguments by civil attorneys E. Vieri Fabiani, Serena Perna, & Francesco Maresca for the Kercher family. Original Italian.

17 Dec 2013 - Closing arguments by defense attorneys Luciano Ghirga & Carlo Dalla Vedova for Knox. Original Italian.

Thank you again to everyone who is taking the time to look into this case.

~a

UPDATE

For everyone’s convenience, I’ve started taking notes on these closing arguments, starting with the civil attorneys for the Kercher family. I haven’t made it all the way through (it’s emotionally difficult), but here, so far, are the arguments of this civil party:

Guede was definitively found guilty of having committed murder with accomplices. There is no reasonable alternative for who Guede’s accomplices might have been.

Knox was definitively found guilty of having committed slander. The slander is connected to the murder. It is further proof of her involvement because it was an attempt to lead the investigation astray.

Sollecito’s claim that his DNA on the bra clasp was the result of contamination is phoney. The contamination doesn’t exist.

Sollecito always carried a pocket knife with him, and he did the night of the murder. It was just never found.

Even if there’s the minimal chance that the DNA on the blade isn’t Meredith’s, it is the DNA of someone whose throat was cut with the knife.

Knox knew that the violence was perpetrated by a person of color. She accused Lumumba instead of Guede because she wanted to lead the investigation astray from her companion and his apartment.

Knox knew that Meredith screamed.

Knox knew that Meredith’s throat had been cut.

Knox knew that there was blood everywhere and that Meredith’s body had been covered.

The independent review of the forensic evidence is not the principle proof of guilt because it is subject to diverse interpretation.

The principle proof of guilt is the congruence of the circumstantial evidence.

There is no valid and reasonable alternative to the evidence of guilt.

The motive is irrelevant because the will to murder has been amply demonstrated.

The claim that Guede committed the murder alone is not sustainable.

The criminal act occurred after the consumption of drugs. A light drug is enough to diminish one’s inhibitions.

Knox does not share the same sensuality as Meredith. Knox takes sex to the extreme.

Knox and Sollecito needed to consume drugs.

The murder was committed by more than one person because so many wounds were inflicted against Meredith in the seconds that the assault lasted.

Knox, Sollecito, and Guede are persons of strong criminal capacity when their inhibitions are dropped, even if they don’t seem so.

They didn’t comprehend what brought them to commit such a horrible act such that they removed it from their minds and convinced themselves that they didn’t commit it.

UPDATE

Here is the English Translation of my defense’s closing arguments.

This entry was posted in Meredith Kercher Murder and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

228 Responses to Kercher & Knox Closing Arguments

  1. Brittany says:

    Amanda,

    “Knox knew that Meredith’s throat had been cut.

    Knox knew that there was blood everywhere and that Meredith’s body had been covered.”

    This particularly upsets me. If you didn’t say it BEFORE the door was kicked down how can it be relevant!? Everyone got a glimpse of some degree, and eveyone discussed it afterwards. This man disgusts me. How is it that more people don’t see through this crap!

    I’m wishing the best for you.

    Sincerely,

    Brittany

  2. Ellen Jill says:

    Dear Amanda,
    I’m a nurse anesthetist and mother of two girls 17 & 20. I’ve been following your case from the beginning. I’ve read your book and Rafe’s. I’ve also read the The Monster in Florence. I’ve also seen a few of your TV appearances. I’ve followed the Injustice in Perugia website and was saddened by his last trial. I just found this website.
    I have always believed in your innocence….period, for all the reasons listed of explanations in this situation. I work in two large hospitals with hundreds of people all well educated. I find it amazing that many believe your guilty. When I question them basically they don’t understand the story, simple as that. I’ve tried to explain your side and succeeded in convincing many of your innocence but it’s difficult. Bottom line this has turned into a monster of a story with so many nooks and crannies it’s a hard story to tell and convince people but it is possible.
    When I read the the defense side of case I’m shocked! Perhaps it’s that I don’t understand clearly. Maybe because it’s a translation and the original Italian presentation is much better. I find it so incredibly wordy and lacking in a clear expression of your innocence that if I didn’t have a better understanding of this case I’d almost feel maybe your not innocent.
    Do you need a new attorney? If you read the arguments from the people on Injustice in Perugia they are clear and powerful. Well written with great intelligence. This transcription seems weak and the arguments not forceful enough. Can you do something about this?
    Also, you have improved greatly on TV but maybe you lack a convincing attitude. You need to be more clear crisp and down right tell people you are innocent and a victim of an incredible situation in which you were in the wrong place at the wrong time.
    The beautiful care free child you were at the time was too young and naive to understand what was happening to you. Your family was not fully grasping it either. I know you all get it now but still I don’t get the sense you defend yourself strong enough.
    You are now the victim of bullying. The Kerchers and attorneys are bullying you and you seem afraid of them and offending their feelings. Honestly, their standpoint is very confusing and it doesn’t appear you can do anything about it nor should you be responsible their situation. Obviously, everyone is sorry for what happened to their daughter but this is not your fault and I feel angry for you that you have to feel their burden.
    Please do not let this consume your life. I’d like to see the pretty Amanda with the longer hair and highlights and pretty cloths. Don’t let yourself go to a dark side where you think you have to keep yourself down. Let yourself back up. Finish school, dress and look fabulous and smile as much as possible in public. Beauty and intelligence is power and you have both, don’t let them strip that from you. How you look and behave in public is very telling and if you look too dark people may interpret that as guilty. Next time you go on TV look beautiful really pretty!! Don’t cry, smile and tell them straight out your innocent, how incredible this whole situation has become and your no longer going to be a part of letting it hold you back on your life. I think if the public sees the bright headed pretty Amanda it’s much easier to realize something is really wrong here.
    I’m sorry if I’ve been too preachy but I just wanted to try and help you because I understand this story and your frustration and this is what I see as an outside observer.
    Best,
    Ellen

  3. Donna Blizzard says:

    Dear Amanda,
    As an American of Italian American descent I am so ashamed of the land of my forefathers for the abusive and inhumane injustice that has been dealt to you and Raffaele. You are the age of my kids and it makes a mother’s skin cringe to think it could happen to anyone’s kids visiting there. I have been working hard that last few years connecting to my Italian family in Napoli. I have been learning Italian so, that I can do genealogical research when I travel there. However, this trial has scared me out of visiting Italy. I fear the corruption both in the courts and on the streets. Please do not blame all Italians for this. There has been so much good come out of Italy. Like any govt. there is corruption. Italy is not the only place. My husband and I were unfortunate to get Judge Ken Anderson in Williamson County Texas on our mortgage case. He knowingly convicted an innocent man to prison. That man was Michael Morton who served 25 yrs in jail for the murder of his wife. The Judge was D.A. back then and withheld information all the while knowing Morton was innocent. The judge was allowed by our county to sit on civil trials while waiting to be disbarred. One to two weeks before he resigned from the bench he gave a bad and unjust ruling in our case. He left us susceptible to a wrongful foreclosure even though we never missed one payment. Our original mortgage co. Conti mortgage was found guilty of fraud in the USA, shut down in Bankruptcy court and fled to guess where? Italy! Long story what Judge Anderson did to us in the civil arena, but he was corrupt in both civil and criminal cases. The innocent project under attorney Barry Scheck took Morton’s case and proved him innocent. Too bad you couldn’t get Barry Scheck to take over your case form here? On another note…the Italians accused you of drug abuse. Did they ever force you to take a drug test to confirm or rule out this charge? Seems a no brainer to me! Anyway, please keep the faith and stay positive. I am so sorry for all your family had to endure. Hate corruption everywhere it maybe found, but remember not all Italians are hateful and corrupt. They will face God all mighty in the heavenly court for wrong doing. Praying for you and your family. God bless and keep you. May the eternal Judge clear your name soon! DB, Texas

  4. Is it cool if I tweet about this blog post?

  5. Do any of you that defend Amanda know that 300 euros was missing from Meredith’s room, BEFORE the murder? What, did Guede go in, just happen to be lucky enough to find it, take it, & THEN go back later to kill Meredith? Although, theft is obviously not an indication of murder, but it is just one more piece of evidence that is mysteriously tied up in this case. Amanda Knox has you people wrapped around her little finger basically because of the way she looks and possibly because she is an American. You need to re-think & look, again, at all the evidence against her and Raphael. I doubt she will EVER be punished for what she may have done, and what she was DEFINITELY a party to. And now she has all that money from the book she wrote. How very sad!!!!

  6. David Wistey says:

    I don’t understand how a civil attorney is allowed to argue for the prosecution in a criminal case. Is this an Italian thing?

  7. Immortelle Bien-Aimée says:

    Hello Amanda,

    I have spent the last couple of days reading and watching a great amount of stuff about you.

    I ‘m sorry to hear of the latest development in the court case. To be honest, I cannot say 100% that I know you didn’t have anything to do with Meredith’s murder. But even if you had some involvement, I still see a lot of good in you and wish you all the best. As for Meredith, I wish her peace and hope that she is right now in a place that her soul experiences just that. I also wish you and everyone touched by this case the same kind of peace.

    With regards to justice, I often think about the entire notion and what it actually means in a generic sense but also connected to all the injustices I have felt in my own life. In the last couple of years, my faith has wavered a great deal due to a number of challenging circumstances I have been encountering. At the end of the day, how much do we really know about each other’s soul history to be able to say what is truly justice in universal terms? Even as I ‘m saying this, I don’t know if I believe in karma from previous lifetimes. A lot of spiritual people believe that say, if you killed someone in another life, then it is fair that someone would kill you in this lifetime in the exact same way. But what if you are the kindest, most empathic person in your current incarnation and you have absolutely no recollection of the crime in question? Should you still suffer? Would it be fair to suffer for what another part of you has done in another life while experiencing a very different set of circumstances?

    I think not, but then how would your soul learn the lesson at hand? And if one is punished for a crime committed in this lifetime, does this punishment her the victim and/or the perpetrator heal their respective emotional/spiritual wounds? I don’t know. I don’t have all the answers.

    And one more thing, I am sure you realize that this sense of loss of liberty that you have experienced through all of this is something that lots of other people experience albeit in different circumstances. This sense of loss of control over one’s life, loss of the ability to do things that bring one joy can be absolutely debilitating for an individual especially if it extends from the past into the present and long into an uncertain future.

    As someone who has been through a lot of challenging situations and still struggle in ways that involve a sense of confinement, I truly empathise with anyone’s effort to experience freedom on all sorts of different levels.

    Blessings to All

  8. Kerry says:

    OMG …….just one thing needs to be taken into account …and I just read it !
    I don’t know why I didn’t think this before until I read what you wrote Amanda …..forget all the other bits of information , the allegations , the false statements …..this is the one fact that proves you ” did not do it ”

    The only DNA evidence found on Meredith and the crime scene was that of Rudy the convicted ! …..how on earth is a person supposed to remove all DNA evidence of themselves and yet leave the DNA of another at the crime scene ……totally impossible ….absolutely not possible ……this alone proves he acted alone …..and you ARE innocent ! …….
    Any bodies doubt should now be removed from there thoughts !!!

  9. Thor Klamet says:

    I felt a little sad reading (skimming, really) the defense argument. I guess they have no choice but to give a long discussion, but it does make me sad. The prosecution has said something absurd (that the knife and bra clasp constitute evidence and that Amanda and Raffaele could have committed the crime and removed their DNA and other traces from the crime scene while leaving Rudy’s) and the defense is forced to respond.

    People sometimes say things like, “the Holocaust never happened.” The moment you argue with them, you have already lost because your very willingness to argue lends their absurd statement legitimacy. Suddenly, it is reasonable to discuss whether or not the Holocaust happened!

    The court in this case has allowed scientifically discredited items to be admitted as evidence and the jury just doesn’t have the scientific expertise to realize how nonsensical it is to even consider them.

    The death of Todd Willingham in Texas in 2004 is another, even sadder, example. The scientific evidence (no trace of gasoline or any other accelerant found in the upstairs bedrooms) showed that the fire that killed Todd’s family was not at all suspicious. The case should never have gone to trial. Instead, it did, the jury was unable to understand the science, and Todd was sentenced to death and eventually executed for a crime he almost certainly did not commit. The tea leaf reading that used to be allowed in arson cases (basically arson investigators using their intuition) is thankfully no longer admissible in U.S. courts, but it is too late for Todd.

    Our legal system has not adjusted fully to the advent of science and so we sometimes get these strange trials in which the two sides argue the equivalent of whether or not the Holocaust ever happened. It is obviously very difficult to mount a coherent defense when you are forced to try to discredit a long string of absurdities.

    We can only hope for rationality.

  10. Kerry says:

    It’s looking like the people in the know have said there no chance you’ll get extradited ……. Live your life as best you can now and try and make something good come from this travesty that’s happened to you …good luck girl …..Kerry :)

  11. Sam Langman says:

    Speak up … I know who dunnit and it wasn’t Patrick L.

  12. Phyllis says:

    Dearest Amanda:
    My family and I have followed your case closely ever since it began in 2009. Never once did we consider you guilty! It was immediately apparent that you were falsely accused and imprisoned. I am a mother of daughters very close to your age so my heart breaks for you AND your mother. I cannot imagine what she has been through. She has been imprisoned right along with you every step of the way. I literally “felt” her heart soar when you were released and now I “feel” her heavy heart and angst as you once again face the injustice in this horrific case. This has got to stop! Beyond contributing to your fund for justice that we ALL need to give to, WHAT CAN WE DO? I am ready to write letters, to make phone calls and to march on Washington. This is a travesty and NEEDS TO STOP!!! We Americans need NOT be intimidated by the Italian justice system — we need to pull together and make a stand in your favor. Please let us know if there is anything we can do for you and your family! Please give your mother a hug for me. When you become a mother you will understand the depth of her pain in all of this. It is outrageous because it is all so unnecessary.

  13. Kerry says:

    Travesty ! ……. Total farse ! ……I’m sorry Amanda this has happened to you

    • warren says:

      you cant be in a confined space with others for four years and not have them know you. you cant lie to liars and criminals for four years and hope to survive. the inmates celebrated your release because they knew you. and knew you wernt lying to them. that you were telling the truth. they dont suffer being lied to well and simply wouldnt let anyone get away with it. the page put up by edward call looks like its from the prosecution lawyers. very professionally done. i dont think even they believe your guilt. anyone with intelligence can see what happened. the killers in jail and everyone who meets him will know this guys a liar. it wont do him good in a hard world where people dont suffer being lied to well.

  14. Annie says:

    Amanda, I still can’t believe that this is going on for you and Raffaele. I wish there was something I could do, as I vehemently disagree with this absurd verdict. I wish you and your family all the best, and hope that your name is cleared soon.

  15. Tiffany says:

    Amanda, I’m so sorry to learn of the verdict today. I send positive thoughts to you and Raffaele. Keep your chin up, don’t quit hoping for the truth. Stay strong! So many are pulling for you both. Tiffany

  16. Jack Friend says:

    I was saddened to hear today this charade will continue to go on. It defies logic that any justice system can take a prosecutor’s argument seriously that “Hey we were totally wrong the first time about it being a drug fueled sex game when it was really about poop in the toilet and a messy bathroom” It is clear that for whatever political reasons for certain folks holding positions of power in Italy the end will justify the means. As long as we get to guilty, it does not matter. No one who values justice or the memory of a victim of a violent crime should want a conviction based on such a lack of evidence. The more power and emotion we give government to convict on such evidence the more liberty each citizen will lose whether it is here or in Italy. Convictions must be hard to achieve because we must be as certain as possible before we allow the state to deprive another of his or her liberty. As a man I have never bought the fact that Raffaele was such a dupe that he was willing to kill on a whim for a girl he met a few days before. I will continue to pray for the families of Amanda and Raffaele who to me seem very wrongly accused.

  17. Julie Jorgensen says:

    Amanda I wish I had just the perfect words to ease your pain and suffering and that of your family and friends as well. Just know that you are not alone. Our support of you has not wavered. We know the truth. We know that you and Raffaele are innocent.

    I pray that you can feel calm and at peace despite today because tomorrow will come and the sun will shine again. There will be an end to this. You will still have the life that you deserve. Don’t ever give up on your desires and dreams. They will still come…just hang in there a little longer. More eyes will open to the truth of this injustice and the U.S. will become involved in finally proving the truth of this case. Hold on to every piece of hope you can find until then…We are here for the long haul… http://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2014/jan/30/amanda-knox-exclusive-video-interview-guilty-video

  18. Gregory Thomson says:

    The “English Translation” of the Defense closing arguments is posted under UPDATE above. It is very current, well translated and an interesting read.

  19. Eric_B says:

    Nasim wrote:
    Why do you assume the pillow was placed to help with a sexual assault? It isn’t really under her hips. More like under her left side. Considering that it was probably also Rudy who placed the blanket my guess it is was some attempt to make her more comfortable.

    Of all the disturbing comments I have read on this case, this is about the worst.

    • Tom Mininger says:

      I agree. And then Rudy goes out dancing.

    • Nasim says:

      Disturbing because it might be true that Rudy is not a necrophiliac? That he might have simply felt remorse about taking part in a brutal murder? In his writing and statements remorse comes up again and again. In constrast no one ever came forward and said Rudy exhibited deviant sexuality.

      • Julie Jorgensen says:

        I will never understand how “guilters” like yourself give a brutal murderer like Rudy Guede every break possible minimizing his actions and the evidence against him while taking the tiniest and most circumstantial pieces of evidence against Amanda and Raffaele and blowing them up to seem hugely important and significant. I will never understand why.

      • Julie Jorgensen says:

        Nasim you quote……..”In constrast no one ever came forward and said Rudy exhibited deviant sexuality.”

        Meredith did. Meredith and her poor sexually violated dead body with all it’s surrounding evidence…came forward and clearly stated…dare I say “shouted” to the world that Rudy Guede exhibits deviant sexuality. Please stop minimizing this monsters actions. It does not honor Meredith’s memory or her last moments of suffering.

      • Rob H says:

        Whatever Nasim thinks personally about Rudy Guede is a matter between him and his conscience, as far as I am concerned. If he wants to start a “Free Rudy” campaign or become his penpal, he is free to do so. Yet is is nothing less than extremely weird that he should make such forgiving and understanding gestures towards Guede, the only person, other than Meredith Kercher there is evidence of in the murder room and at the same time attempt to pursue Amanda Knox for the crime – Peculiar. The Kercher family wanted the truth and all they got was Nasim and his ilk and a reduced sentence for their daughter’s killer. What a horrible irony.

        • Daphne says:

          I also may have given the impression elsewhere that Rudy deserved a break. I meant compassion, and not forgiveness or excusing.

  20. Dee Bradeen says:

    Amanda, I read your book shortly after it came out and couldn’t put it down. I believed in your innocence long before the book came out. Since reading about your false confession, I’ve learned about false confessions here in the US and am following a case in Montana. There are many similarities in the circumstances that lead to a false confession, including the “perfect storm” that occurs. There needs to be more education about this! Law enforcement and the judicial system in particular need to have a segment of their schooling devoted to the study of false confessions. Perhaps they do, but still so many fall through the cracks. I know part of this is human frailty, ego, etc, but also ignorance. The public, should also be more informed. False imprisonment is a tragedy that effects people way beyond those involved in the case. It impacts the confidence level and reputation of justice in the entire state or country.

  21. Molly says:

    Dearest Amanda,

    I had not heard about your situation until late last year when a colleague gave me your book as a present ( I enjoy reading memoirs). I read your book in one day. I was in absolute suspense throughout the whole book. I cried many times reading your memoir knowing your were innocent! What has saddened me is to learn that your case was annulled and is currently been reviewed by the Italian courts! I wish you all the best and look forward to the closing of this terrible time for you on January 30th 2014.
    From Molly
    Brisbane, Australia

  22. Dianne R says:

    Amanda, reading your book now. In bed, with blow dryer under the covers because I am freezing cold this morning lol. Anyway, I am not interested in opinion, only fact, which brings it all down to DNA which I realize can be faulty, especially if police can trapse all over a house, getting DNA everywhere. Only God knows what happened and He will take action, sometime/somehow. Even if you DID do it, there is forgiveness from God because he sent his son Jesus to die for EVERYONE’S sin, no matter how bad or light. Jesus loves you and so do I Amanda.

    • Julie Jorgensen says:

      You say only God knows what happened to Meredith, but that isn’t completly accurate. Rudy Guede also knows exactly what happened that night since he carried out the murder and all the evidence from the crime scene confirms this. Amanda knows beyond a doubt that she was not there and all the evidence confirms this as well. She does not need forgiveness any more than you or I or any other decent law abiding person. The love you feel, if it’s genuine, is appreciated, the judgement is not.

    • Gregory Thomson says:

      I think you did it, Dianne R.

  23. Amanda Knox,
    I have not read a of your book I bought just the first few pages but know that since day one I have always believed in your innocence as well as rafelle’s innicence as well. I feel that what the Iralian Justice system is putting you both through is wrong and pure evil and with that said they will have to answer to God one day for it. I pray for You and Your Family and Rafelle and his Family everyday with this second unfair re-trial. I honestly feel in my heart and mind that everything is going to turn out good with the re-trial.
    Keep your head held high, keep faith and keep praying.
    Hugs and Prayers,
    Jonathan IN Texas

    • Eric_B says:

      Thank you Jonathan.

      You Americans are not alone. Amanda has many British supporters also, such as myself and others.

  24. Mark Saha says:

    I guess you must know this if you’ve been following the trial, but it was news to me.

    Prosecutor Crini has ruled out the sex game gone wrong theory.

    Many good wishes, Amanda…

    http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2014/01/20/Sex-game-scenario-ruled-out-in-Amanda-Knox-retrial/UPI-19961390238460/

  25. Sarah H says:

    Below, Julie Jorgensen posted an excellent link to a summary of the defense case made by Raffaele’s attorneys . One thing I was glad to see is that Maori referenced the video that showed how easy it was to climb the wall of the cottage, pointing the judge to youtube. (The Italian system with regard to entering evidence certainly is different!) He also explained how the computers support Raffaele’s alibi — evidence that the police somehow overlooked. Here is the link again. Anyone with any remaining doubts should read this.

    http://wrongfulconvictionnews.com/defense-perfectly-demonstrates-the-innocence-of-amanda-knox-and-raffaele-sollecito/

  26. Meg says:

    Hi Amanda,
    It’s my first time visiting your site which appears very artfully put together. I am a long time supporter and bought your book on it’s first day of sale at Barnes & Noble. You have a great flair for words.

    I don’t remember whether or not you mention it in your book but I thought I’d ask here: was the doorknob really broken so that it could only lock from within and thus required a key to unlock to get out? As the next big decision looms on the horizon for you and Raffaele (can’t ever remember the right spelling), I am reminded of how much it seemed to me that the doorknob may have imprisoned Rudy and thus caused the confrontation between him and Meredith. Life truly turns on a dime. That’s the famous line from the hoaky movie Ghost made before your time I think but it’s a true one nonetheless.

    Is that scenario one you’ve imagined probably happened? I’m not baiting you at all here; I have championed your innocence from about the third week of your arrest, when some american journalists were willing to report the truth, which unfortunately became lost to many for some time.

    Well I’ve always wondered about it. Great to see you moving into a new and promising part of your young life.

    • Amanda says:

      Meg,

      Thank you for reading my memoir. I appreciate your compliments.

      To answer your questions, the front door to our apartment had a faulty latch such that, for the door to remain shut, you needed to lock it. That is, unlike most doors which you can close and which will remain propped within the door frame, our front door wouldn’t, and so all of us habitually locked the front door whether we were leaving or arriving home.

      So your thought about Guede feeling suddenly imprisoned within the house at Meredith’s arrival may be legitimate, even if he hadn’t used the front door to break in in the first place.

      The scenario I imagine based off of years of hearing the evidence debated in court is that Guede broke into the house before Meredith came home. He riffled through Filomena’s things and made himself at home in Filomena and Laura’s bathroom. When Meredith came home it would seem she didn’t initially realize Guede was there. I think Guede must have surprised her in her bedroom and attacked her.

      I don’t know if Guede was motivated by fear or blind rage or lust or any combination of these things. He had only met Meredith once, as far as I know. Unless it was all in his mind, he didn’t have any reason to personally have anything against her. I can’t see how anyone in Perugia could. No matter what, it’s just terrible how she was at the wrong place at the wrong time in the wrong hands and yet was in her own home.

      Thanks,
      a

      • Matthew McKenna says:

        Dear Miss Knox, I have briefly read Five of Nine Pages of your Appeal. I see that the Points argued are Similar, but not the Same as here in the States. Does the Italian System use what is here called (Case Law) ? …….. I see many OPINIONATED arguments that do not seem to have Facts backing them up. I also noticed, that a person…on Record, did NOT see you or Raffiele….and says a Year later something Different. From what I understand, I could punch HOLES in alot of those
        points. I would have to take hours to Pick Apart, alot of the Points. If there is CASE LAW in Italy…..Then it will also be at Most College LAW Libraries. They have Foriegn Citations. If in this Respect is what a Panel of Judges there have the SAME TRAC to Follow….. Then you should be EASILY ACQUITED. This SLOPPY at best Prosecution UNCITED Material…would be Laughed out of a U.S. Courtroom. GOD be with you…..

        • Rob H says:

          Very perceptive, Matthew – hardly any case law at all – almost unrestrained freedom of judges. Hence the expression “Judge made law” applied to civil law systems as opposed to “Case law” of Common law systems like the US and UK. May I ask – and please say no if it makes you uncomfortable, but what case were you involved in – you referred to an injustice in another post? Cheers, Rob

          • Matthew McKenna says:

            Hello Sir, a Reply to your Question. I was Involved in the First “Secret Trial” in US History. It was CDS case.
            Too many details to put her. I was NOT PRESENT in Court or were my Codefendants. The Place was Somerset County, N.J. The Head Prosecutor was NICHOLAS BISSELL, who Killed Himself after 30 Counts of Official Corruption. Put his name in Youtube…..Several News Videos. if you want more info, ask the Adminstrator here……Thank You.

          • Matthew McKenna says:

            Miss Knox, I just completed reading your Appeal pages 6 to 9. This is SUB-STANDARD even to the U.S. Civil System. CIVIL Standard is Likelyhood.
            Criminal Standard is as you know REASONABLE DOUBT. I Find the First Point Rebuttle on Page 9, Very Disturbing. That ISSUE ALONE, Mitigates ALL EVIDENCE that was Considered Tangible. If these Judge have Any ETHICS, this is Over. My Conclusion is after reading this, The Standard Here is less than IMPOSSIBLE.

        • Daphne says:

          Hi, Matthew. There do seem to be so many inconsistencies in other witnesses’ stories — and some online accounts that are false — so that bribery and coercion become a possibility. It’s difficult for us to judge, since all the evidence is apparently not out in the open yet, and not that many of us heard all the testimony.

  27. Rob H says:

    The wrong toilet – Crini’s argument

    I wonder if this is helpful. Prosecutor Crini having now ruled out the theory of an erotic sex game relies instead on Meredith Kercher and Amanda Knox arguing about hygiene. The final argument between the two occurs over Guede leaving the toilet unflushed on the night of November 1st.

    The problem is, it is not “the toilet”. It is Ms Romanelli and Ms Mezzetti’s toilet. It is not Meredith Kercher’s toilet (which she shared with Ms Knox).

    This toilet is in the bathroom near the entrance to the apartment, accessible through the kitchen/living room area. Meredith Kercher’s toilet is in her bathroom shared with Ms Knox at the back, next to Ms Kercher’s bedroom.

    Why would Ms Kercher have gone into Ms Romanelli and Ms Mezzetti’s bathroom and noticed the unflushed toilet? In order to have a bath (there is only a shower in her bathroom)? In order to use a hairdryer as Ms Knox did on the morning of November 2nd? So, what time did she do this? Close to the time the prosecution maintains she died? 11 – 11.30pm? Does the prosecution now contend that Ms Kercher, tired and about to go to bed (according to Sophie Purton), not only does not even take her jacket off for more than two hours, but, with Ms Knox, Mr Sollecito and Guede in the apartment, decides instead to have a bath – not a shower – requiring her to walk through the apartment from one end to the other?

    How peculiar. Or was Ms Kercher simply in the habit of examining toilets after people used them?

    Yet another credibility gap?

  28. Kerry says:

    To Amanda …..and Amanda only !
    I did not apologise to you when you said sorry to me for making me feel uncomfortable .
    Well of course it was not my intension to make you uncomfortable .
    So I too apologise .
    This is to Amanda not all the others that decided to have and air their opinion against me .
    And no I don’t think you did it …….I almost said ….”did you” again ….that would be foolish :)

  29. Rob H says:

    There is a super interview on blogtalkradio.com with Luca Cheli from october last year about the case. Signor Cheli is a smart and knowledgeable fellow, has a number of interesting, intelligent insights and explodes some myths; a very rational Italian. Here is the archive:

    http://www.blogtalkradio.com/injustice-anywhere/2013/10/23/the-amanda-knox-case-an-italian-perspective

    • Tom Mininger says:

      I agree. Signor Cheli also has a scathing (but as an Italian citizen cautiously polite) commentary on the Italian high court’s June document. What stands out is the high court blatantly ignoring exonerating evidence just as Massei did.
      http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/ItalianSupremeCourtDecision2013.html

      A review of exonerating evidence:
      No blood transfer, DNA, or bruise cut evidence against Amanda and Raffaele. That’s the ball game right there.

      The Skype tap of Guede where he said Amanda and Raffaele were not there. he’d never even seen Raffaele before in his life.

      The people next to the cottage with their broken down car who saw and heard nothing during the time the prosecution’s mentally ill “witnesses” tried to place the TOD, which was later than the actual TOD shortly after Meredith arrived home with a burglar in the flat around 9:00.

      The store clerk who verified her boss’ initial statement to police that Amanda was not in the store the morning after the murder, which contradicted this boss’ statement months later when he became a media darling by saying Amanda was in the store that morning.

      The tmb tests showed that the luminol detected hallway prints were not blood. The high court couldn’t care less that CSI Stefanoni perjured herself in court claiming she hadn’t done the tmb but that her notes revealed that she had.

      The high court ignores the fact that Amanda recanted her police typed signed statements a day after she signed them during a middle-of-the-night unrecorded interrogation. And they certainly don’t care that she warned them that she was confused out of her mind the same day this interrogation ended.

      When the high court says contamination must be proven, after the blooper reels masquerading as evidence collection videos that the independent review showed in court, it is like the Church lecturing Galileo about the moons of Jupiter.

  30. Kerry says:

    Amanda this is a question directed only at you , as you are the only one to know the answer :

    Did you do it ?

    Obviously you can’t answer that on here so send me an email …….shhhh I’m good at keeping secrets :)
    Regards Kerry
    P.s. If you’re ever in the uk look me up …..hang on …..I think we has an extradition treaty with Italy ……stay where you are till after the trial when you are equited again :)

    • Sarah H says:

      What a mean little post. Amanda, as you know, wrote a whole book answering your question. I know you don’t want to hear anything from anybody but her: tough luck. Why don’t you spend more time learning grammar and spelling and less time harassing innocent people?

      • Kerry says:

        Not a harassing attack on her …..read it again in a different way …..and I write fast so do not usually check my spelling or grammar ….if it comes in my head I put it straight onto paper ….and hit post ….best way to be honest about what you say …not checked …rechecked …played around with so it sounds just perfect ……I want it just the way I thought it !

    • Amanda says:

      Kerry,

      You know, your question reminds me of prison. There, no matter how many times I professed my innocence in the courtroom, inevitably both guards and prisoners would rub shoulders with me and coax, “Did you do it? Come on…you can tell ME.”

      This experience – the interrogation, the investigation, the trials, the imprisonment, the media – stole every security and privacy from me. At this point, when it comes to this case, I’m as open and exposed as I was in the bathroom of my prison cell, with its viewing window. In every interview and statement I have made in regards to this case, I have professed my innocence. Because I am innocent.

      I did not “do it.”

      The question is, do you believe me? Do you believe me now? Has anything changed?
      a

      • Sophia says:

        Can you not see the hypocrisy of whining about feeling naked in the glare of publicity while beginning your very next sentence with “In every interview and statement I have made…”

        • Amanda says:

          Sophia,

          I never chose for my persecution to be publicized. The prosecution fed misinformation to the media from the day of my arrest. I’m forced to defend myself not only in the courtroom, but in the public domain as well. My legal and personal privacy has been undermined in both.

          a

          • Julie Jorgensen says:

            It is heartbreaking to hear that you feel as open and exposed now as you did during the invasive and unprivate moments of your prison experience. It also saddens me to realize that even we your supporters, who have good intentions of wanting to help, might actually be stealing our own little pieces of your privacy. I wish I knew what would really help you the most so we could stop doing those things that aren’t really helpful. Despite the oppositions opinion that we are some organized supertanker of support, we are just regular people trying our best, and we don’t always do things perfectly. And yet, you are ultimately judged for our imperfect actions. Suggestions, or guidance, of even the small degree would be immensly helpful. Wishing you and Raffaele the best tomorrow.

          • Amanda says:

            Julie,

            Supporters have done the best thing anyone could do for a person like myself who has been manipulated, falsely accused, dehumanized, and publicly scrutinized – you’ve empathized. Instead of taking for granted the unfounded and unreasonable claims of the accusers, you’ve sought out the facts of this case, you’ve sought out the research that documents the imperfections of justice systems, and you’ve tried to spread awareness based upon your knowledge.

            Supporters are also not responsible for my public persecution and I see you as responding similarly to the way my family and I must respond – by giving everyone the right information to make a just judgment.

            I’m forever grateful.
            a

        • Sarah H says:

          Sophia, there is no hypocrisy in wanting to shout the truth to the heavens when other people are spreading vicious lies about you. But all Amanda has done is try to answer the public lies with the truth that only she can tell. And she has done this with enormous patience and grace.

          Unlike those who perversely enjoy attacking her.

        • Rob H says:

          There is no contradiction, Sophia, actual or implied in placing a high value on privacy and being prepared to defend oneself in public against false charges. Nor does Ms Knox whine.

          Everybody on the prosecution’s side of the argument believes that Amanda Knox should be quiet, that her supporters should be quiet. John Kercher and Maresca believe this. When Ms Knox was acquited yet still faced this prosecution appeal, Mr Kercher demanded she keep a “low profile”. When, earlier, her parents appeared on British televsion to defend her, he derided them for repeating “the mantra of their daughter’s innocence”. No, she should not be quiet! Not for a moment. And those of you who think that this offends the memory of Meredith Kercher are the same people who stayed quiet when her killer, Rudy Guede had his sentence cut and who will no doubt continue to remain quiet when he walks out of his prison later this year on work release. Shame on you.

      • Kerry says:

        Hi , I had to read that three times before I felt I read it the right way to get the emotion out of it in the way you wrote it .
        You must now read mine in a different way too ….not an attack !…not a serious question expecting an answer ! …..just a small bit of light hearted humour in an absolute circus of a case , by media and court !
        I’ve read parts of the case ….for and against you and cannot see there ever being a story told that will satisfy everyone’s answer to the question ” did you do it ”
        At first I read your reply as an attack against my mis construed reply to your blog …..then I read it again and again ….. I feel for you Amanda …truly I do ….do I believe you did it ?….well I’d like to think an innocent person wouldn’t have to go through the drama that you have ….but for all the questions and answers you have made over the years …….I’d like to think it is a huge miscarriage of justice the first time round , and this time you will be equited again and thus carry on with your life the way it was supposed to be .
        Ok so now you made ME go all serious !
        I’m going to end with a smiley face though :)

        • Amanda says:

          Kerry,

          I’m sorry if I made you uncomfortable with my response. I suppose I’m not able to laugh at the absurdity just yet. People still feel compelled to ask me that question in all seriousness, and for a while now I’ve felt that asking that question shouldn’t be necessary anymore. Indeed, the asking of it strikes me as an indication of a mindset in people that frightens me – the mindset that, no matter the evidence of my innocence, there’s a feeling that I must have done something. It frightens me because I can’t reason with it.

          The best to you,
          a :)

          • Kerry says:

            You do not need to apologise to me …but thank you and my fingers are crossed for you ….it seems that luck plays a huge part in this case :)

          • Luara says:

            Amanda,
            It’s a horribly heavy accusation. I would not find it funny if someone asked me if I had killed someone, even if they were “joking”. Even though I’m not on trial. I don’t know how you, in peril because of that accusation, could ever find it funny.
            Kerry, I do have a sense of humor, but it finds other ways to play :)

          • Luara says:

            the mindset that, no matter the evidence of my innocence, there’s a feeling that I must have done something.
            Perhaps because people want the world to make sense and not be too scary – they want to feel that it couldn’t happen to them.

      • Luara says:

        Amanda,
        It’s the evidence that’s convincing. There is good evidence that you could not have done it, and no good evidence that you did it.
        I relate to you and hope with all my heart for the best for you. I’ll probably have some kind of party if you’re acquitted :)
        You might feel like “I didn’t do it, I didn’t do it, can’t you SEE my sincerity?”
        But guilty people say the same things – so in the end, it has to come down to evidence.

        • Tom Mininger says:

          I agree. I would trust Amanda and Raffaele with my loved ones not because they claim to be good people, but because the evidence that would have to be there if they were involved is not there. (blood transfer, DNA, bruises/cuts)

          After six years of looking we find their past includes nothing relevant to a violent crime case, only loving family and loyal friends.

          Given Guede’s history of burglary, fugue states, knife brandishing, and murder, I wouldn’t want him near anyone, let alone people I cared about.

        • Kerry says:

          I can’t believe your reply to me …..funny …… It was not supposed to be funny …..it seems that a lot of you replying to my first message asking her “did she do it ?” …are just trying join in a completely pointless argument ….none of this was directed at you lot , it was at Amanda Knox …. As we seem to be so critical let me start on you …….. How on earth can you relate to her ! …..have you been locked up for a murder you say you haven’t done …been persecuted by media and public ….separated from loved ones and endure the hell hole of a prison she was in ……..NO YOU HAVENT …..so you can’t possibly relate ……as for having a party if she’s not found guilty again ….really ! ……this isn’t a game show ……don’t have a party and stick the money in a charity box …….unbelievable your reply was ……and pointless

          • Matthew McKenna says:

            Kerry, another Reply to you.
            I have been WRONGLY CONVICTED too. That is why I have followed this case in the First Place. I also happen to be the First Case in U.S. State Court History—NOT to be PRESENT in Court. I have the PROOF. This is not about me, but Miss Knox….. So I can Emphathize……

          • Luara says:

            I relate to Amanda because I was persecuted as a child. Things that happen to children are gigantic in their minds, although to adults they might look small. When someone grows up, it would take something very drastic to be as huge as abuse is to a child.
            Anyone who has been persecuted or scapegoated can relate to Amanda, at least with that aspect of their experience.
            Us humans have different lives, but we have many common elements in our experience too, because we are human.
            And it’s a good thing to remember that. All people have elements of the worst and the best of humanity that ever was.

      • Matthew McKenna says:

        Kerry, this is for you. You are IGNORANT. How Dare you make Light of this Kercher’s Murder, that was Perpertrated by the ANIMAL who is Now Incarcerated. Then you Victimize, Miss Knox after her Horrible Ordeal. She is Fighting at this Point for her Freedom. The facts Speak. NO EVIDENCE of these two Defendants. At some point in your Life, you will feel Helpless. If this type of thing makes you feel good, you will have a Problem, when you get to the Other Side. Your Soul, is your Conciousness….along, with your Personality….will go beyond. There, you will be helpless. Please, reconsider what you wrote. If Hurt is what you enjoy, it will come back to you.

        • Kerry says:

          If this is about the reply to Luara ….well I had other people read it before I replied and they thought the same as me …..as for you getting on this perfetic crusade by Ms Knox followers to hang , draw and quater me then be my guest …..I know what I said was neither meant to be hurtful or attacking in anyway to Amanda ….and if you take the time to piece together this maze of replies on here caused by my one first message ….then you will see that Amanda Knox replied to me and I believe understood that it was not aimed at making her feel bad .YOU are so quick to judge a person Im thinking you are in the legal profession ….if you are then your reply makes perfect sense .
          Now go and spend your time doing something more constructive , I’ve got more haters to reply to !

        • Kerry says:

          Matthew
          you’re right it’s not about you ! …… But some how ….you’ve just managed to make it about you with that statement .

          • Kerry says:

            Mathew
            And another thing …just because you too claim to have been wrongly convicted does not make you have anything other than this in common with Amanda Knox …..so stop trying to have some connection ….it’s an obsession now !

            You are all bullies trying to be heros and fight her corner on this ….it was delt with a lot of messages ago between me and Ms Knox …..so again I say ” the end I hope” ….unless you guys don’t want to leave it there ….which will just prove my point ….you are all just out for an argument ! …and to impress Ms Knox with your loyalty to her ……!

      • Elena says:

        “The motive is irrelevant because the will to murder has been amply demonstrated.”

        ????What was the will? Because I don’t see it. I can not see the motive that you could have to assest 46 stab to your roomate, even if you didn’t have a very good relationship, I have many friends who have roomates and cohabitation it’s not easy, but they don’t kill eachother for that!!(and in such a way!!)…

        And I don’t understand why could Guede did so, because it seems a passional crime and a robbery of 300€ doesn’t seem a reason to make such a saddistic crime…, couldn’t there be another man there? Was there found another DNA wich wasn’t from Guede? It’s strange…

        But I think, the motive of the crime is the clue in this case to know ALL THE TRUTH and that everyone knows it and that would be no doubt that you didn’t commit such a crime!!

    • Caro says:

      Your joke may be in bad taste …

      • Kerry says:

        It wasn’t a joke …..there was no punch line … I asked a question that Amanda replied to , and yes I already knew what the response would be , I just wanted her to say it to me , light hearted humour was at the end of my message !
        Amanda has chosen this way to communicate with people …they are not all supporters who air their opinion on her blogs but she chooses to post what she thinks needs to be aired .
        Again I say I don’t believe she did it ….my reasons are straight forward :
        Someone has been tried and found guilty of the murder …he did not implement anyone else , the Italian police and prosecution believe others were involved ….so why did this man not say he was aided in the crime !
        Secondly , the lack of evidence ….no evidence …no conviction !

        • Rob H says:

          As a fellow Brit, I can tell you, Kerry, that your British humour will not translate well in these matters. A little cultural sensitivity is required particularly when, six years into this debacle, not just Ms Knox’s, but all her American friends’ wounds are raw.

        • Caro says:

          Yes, indeed, I may probably mixed up different senses of humor (sarcasm, irony, kidding and so on). For me it means “Witz” (yes, I’m German), and for ” Witz” there’s no punch line needed (for me). I have to apologize if “joke” has a different meaning! I am not a native speaker and I’m struggling with the English language, too.

          Why Rudy Guede don’t tell … is a good question. Maybe because of some psychological reasons? I remember to ask the question if RG has something to lose in some German internet forum. Nobody answered. Although some lawyers must have been present.

          • Kerry says:

            I’m not quite sure if you understand me now or not , but just to let you know again ….I was not mocking or taking her plight to a comical level , just saying what I thought at the time ……take it as you want but I’m not a bully or someone that goes looking for conflict ….I just say what I think ……I’m a man ….that’s what we do ….speak before we think in most cases !

          • Luara says:

            Rudy Guede could lose plenty if he disappoints the prosecution, like his chances of parole.

    • Eric_B says:

      if Amanda did it she would currently be employed by US Intelligence probably at Area 51, due to her paranormal abilities.

      The mundane reality is, she didn’t do it.

      • Kerry says:

        No place for humour on here ……as I found out :)

        • Sarah H says:

          How can there be any humor now, Kerry, in the midst of an unbelievably unfair retrial? With the prosecutor having just called for their immediate arrest if convicted? Imagine how Amanda feels knowing Raffaele is still in Italy, and could be arrested again within days? And that he could have freed himself from all this years ago if he had just caved into the pressure and falsely implicated her? This isn’t British humor vs. American humor, it’s empathy versus a lack of empathy. People’s lives are on the line. It’s not a time for lightness and wit.

          • Kerry says:

            Really ….. Did you not read any of my replies to Amanda ….did you not read her replies back ….. Read my first comment again …and realise this blog is for people to say what they think …when they think it …with the approval of Amanda before it’s put up , I’m not mocking her …I’m not mocking the death of an innocent girl ….I not mocking the injustice that has been done in the past ….I just asked her ….” Did she do it ” …..I wanted a reply from her ….I’ve never seen anyone on this blog ask her directly ….so I did …..the end of my message was light hearted …..one day soon she will smile at light hearted comments ….but as she has informed me the time has yet to come ……just leave it there ! …..I don’t want to argue with you just because want one of my unedited responses so you can have another go at me for that message …..oh hang on …..that is what this is ….go on then have another go at me !

    • Matthew McKenna says:

      This is Directed at Kerry. You are IGNORANT, If you get a Laugh out of a Death, then Mocking an Innocent Women. Then go spend time with the Animal who left his Filth at the Crime Scene. If your Comments make you Feel Happy, please take them somewhere else…. Your Concientious Spirit is your Soul…..That is what we become in the next life…..

      • Sarah H says:

        This is also directed at Kerry. No one else on this blog has asked Amanda whether she “did it” because she has answered this question in various venues over and over and over for YEARS. And this blog is linked to her memoir, “WAITING TO BE HEARD” in which she clearly lays out that she didn’t do it, and how her defense lawyers proved she didn’t do it.

        I cannot believe that you have never before heard her say, “I didn’t do it.” So why did you ask this loaded question in what you now claim was a “light” manner? How can anyone ever have a “light” attitude about discussing a real murder? And, if you weren’t implying that she was guilty, why did you say you knew she couldn’t answer you publicly, and invite you to make a personal connection? She has said it publicly. She has said it clearly. She has said it repeatedly. SHE AND RAFFAELE DID NOT DO IT.

        And anyone with a brain who looks at the evidence will know that she must be telling the truth.

        • Kerry says:

          You seem a very aggressive person …..well if it makes you feel any better ,Amanda is putting all your responses on here to watch me reply and be torn apart by you wolves with a one track mind ……tell me ……was it the question “did you do it” or the light hearted message after …… Because both would not justify such ridiculous amount of attacts on me that you lot are doing …..go get a life and follow someone that you can personally really help ….you along with a large percentage of people that reply time and time again to Amanda’s blogs have got an unhealthy obsession with her …..go do something constructive with your life this is helping no one ……and NO I didn’t come on here to help anyone …..Before you throw that back at me !

          • Sarah H says:

            The reason people keep arguing with you, Kerry, is that you avoid answering any specific questions — such as why you asked Amanda if she “did it” in the first place, knowing that Amanda has answered this question at least hundreds of times over the years. All you do is mouth off in your negative, insinuating way, and then complain that people answer back. If you don’t like it, no one’s making you hang around.

        • Julie Jorgensen says:

          Kerry, I find it interesting that you keep resurrecting this topic as if your real intent is to try and stir the pot or pick a fight…reminds me an awful lot of another writer who frequents FAK.

          • Kerry says:

            Julie …. I only have replied to every attack at me ….read it again , I also put ” the end I hope ” at the end of one of my messages …..if you want me to stop , then you stop attacking me ….I only reply to something aimed at me or something Ive said !

        • Kerry says:

          Sarah H …I walked away from this but you want a reply I think , no I have never heard her say it …..I have not followed this case as much as you seem to have . I said why I asked the question earlier …..
          You say she didn’t do it …. Well saying she didn’t do it because of no evidence does not mean she didn’t do it , it just means there is no evidence to say she did ! ….two completely different statements and one only Amanda Knox knows the answer to , I think she didn’t do it , I can not prove she didn’t do it but I have my beliefs based on lack of evidence and that Rudy Guede did not implement anyone else and because the police trying to frame the pair of them .
          I only “mouth off” as you put it in defence of myself ……are people not allowed to defend themselves when attacked by others verbily ? ….please don’t reply as I’ve had enough of all you guys one tracked minds ,

      • Kerry says:

        Really …..mocking …..happy ! ……you too have not read my replies saying I was not mocking her ……you are a sad man with an aggressive nature that has an unhealthy obsession with this girl Amanda …..what exactly constructive are you doing for her by coming on here with your unjust measly little comments at me ……………I hope you are enjoying this Amanda ? …….now I too know what it’s like to be persecuted ….touché :)

    • Philippe says:

      I volunteer Here two really good reasons why Amanda could NOT have “done it”..
      I know it’s ridiculous, but could anyone go and commit a horrendous murder if you just watched this:
      http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=aip3836VtZ0&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3Daip3836VtZ
      And this is just a reminder of what one probably hopes italy looks like, before your flatmates gets brutally murdered…
      http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GKN1T3K1idg&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DGKN1T3K1idg

      • Philippe says:

        Sorry, I meant, two MORE good reasons..
        Of course, there is all the “usual ” ones..:)
        And all the evidences to proof that she was not even there..

  31. Doug Moodie says:

    When I think of the prosecution of this case, and the prosecutions case, it brings to mind a famous poem:

    I met a traveller from an antique land
    Who said: Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
    Stand in the desert. Near them, on the sand,
    Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
    And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
    Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
    Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
    The hand that mocked them and the heart that fed:
    And on the pedestal these words appear:
    “My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
    Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!”
    Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
    Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
    The lone and level sands stretch far away.

    Ozymandias
    Percy Bysshe Shelley

    Of that colossal wreck… good words to describe the case against you!

  32. Rob H says:

    I was sent a copy of a report from “The Guardian” here in England from September 18th 2011, as the Knox/Sollecito appeal drew to a close, in which the reporter, Tom Kington, refers to a conversation with Maresca, the Kerchers’ attorney – here is the extract:

    “Maresca said he was fed up with articles by Oggi magazine – which sells 600,000 copies – calling for Knox’s release. “It’s all organised with Sollecito’s defence team to influence the jury,” he said. He admitted that an open letter from Kercher’s sister, Stephanie, challenging the DNA review, which he sent to newspapers this month, could have the same effect, “but that was one letter against a barrage of articles, like David v Goliath”.

    I was somewhat taken aback by this – Did Stephanie Kercher really write an open letter challenging the DNA review by Conti and Vecchiotti, which appeared in Italian newspapers in September 2011? Anybody know anything about this? I can find no other reference.

    Here is a link to the article:
    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/sep/18/amanda-knox-awaits-verdict

    • Eric_B says:

      yep she did.

      she implored the court to forget about the DNA review and remember ‘all the other evidence’.

  33. Sam Allison says:

    I have a technical question. When the Court of Cassation “threw back” the charges to be re-tried, did the matter descend to the court of the initial level, or the court of the appeal? In other words, will the upcoming verdict return directly to the Court of Cassation to be finalized, or must it be appealed and tried AGAIN before finally returning to the Court of Cassation?

    • Amanda says:

      The trial was sent back to the appeal level. The verdict of the 30th will have to go through only one more step, the Court of Cassation (aka the Supreme Court) in order to be finalized.

      Thank you for asking for clarification,
      a

  34. Sarah H says:

    Amanda, I don’t question the motives of the Kerchers. They’ve all been through an unimaginable loss, and I think their only mistake is to trust their lawyers. And since they don’t speak Italian, and the British press engaged in so much yellow journalism, I can understand how that happened.

    It’s the lawyers of the Kerchers whose motives I suspect. The lawyers who have been in constant attendance at every level of the trial, and have clearly been misleading their clients about the evidence — or the lack thereof.

  35. Brian says:

    Amanda, you have many supporters here in Australia as well.
    I have been following your ordeal since 2008 when I saw a documentary on TV.
    Right from the first I believed you & Rafaelle innocent.
    I could not believe someone like Mignini existed in this day & age.
    My heart goes out to you.
    Forgive me but unfortunately even though I feel sorrow for Meredith’s family I am also very angry at them for believing the rubbish, lies, malicious slander & hate directed at you.
    I find it hard to comprehend how they can waste effort in pursuing two clearly innocent people & yet do nothing to ensure the real killer is punished properly for his deeds.
    I pray & hope that they will soon realize their mistake & allow you & Rafaelle to join them in grieving for your friend Meredith.
    Stay strong & have faith, truth & justice will win out.

  36. Janet Stanziano says:

    Just wanted to leave a small message of support, Amanda. Just remember that more and more people have come to know your and Raffaele’s innocence. It’s really just a small band of people who are spreading the lies about you. We are all thinking about you and hoping this ridiculousness ends for you soon. Take care of yourself!

  37. Lisa Smith says:

    “Thank you again to everyone who is taking the time to look into this case.” You are welcome. And you are guilty. Too many lies, to many explainings, too many “I was confused”. Just admid everything already, pay what you rightfully own the real victims: Lumumba, and Kercher family. You are only making it harder for you to confess everything later when you actually are faced with eternity. It’s ridiculous to try to pretend you care for the wrongly imprisoned when everybody knows you were the one who accused wrongfully Lumumba, and I bet you would have gone all the way to court to testify against him and he would be today serving 30 years for murder. You don’t fool me. If you cared for wrongfully imprisoned, you would have paid him what court ordered you to.

    • Lisa — What is the evidence that causes you to be so convinced? I’ve never seen a case based almost purely on conjecture and innuendo, and not actual evidence. Amanda’s DNA in her own bathroom and hallway? Ridiculous theories that she and her boyfriend had a sex game with a guy who neither of them ever even communicated with or hung out with? Constantly changing prosecution theories about the motive, like the latest one about Meredith being angry because Guede left poop in the toilet?
      If you are going to accuse someone of such a terrible crime, you need some evidence to back it up, not the weak evidence the Italian prosecutors have.

    • Rob H says:

      If somebody gave Lisa Smith an enema, what would be left of her afterwards would be so small it would fit in one of Nasim’s shoeboxes twice over. It’s just that nobody could conceivably want to get that close. And yes, everybody, she did actually write “to many explainings” (sic)! No education, no intelligence, no learning and no courage. Just a failure as a human being.

    • Daphne says:

      Amanda:
      Hi, and thanks for your sweet response. Happy New Year. As you know, your friends and supporters are here for you and believe in your innocence. I am one of them. Don’t let the BS get to you — an Italian court of law already acquitted you and Raffaele for being innocent in 2011. You are not alone in your struggles. Your experience is unique and many of us identify with it and relate to it perfectly. Journalists must come to terms with reality and realize that in the end, the courts and judges convict, not them. You’ve taught us so much.

    • Brittany says:

      Lisa,

      I suggest you take time to read her Memoir. You can find evidence and facts not only on her blog, but by searching the case on the internet. Amanda is committed to bringing awareness to other cases of the wrongfully accused. Amanda has nothing to hide. What you see is what you get.

      I encourage you to read her blog “European Court of Human Rights”. There you will find she is appealing the slander conviction. The comments made by Amanda were coerced. It was a long interrogation in a language she barely spoke without legal representation.

      Lisa, your anger is misdirected. We all want justice for Meredith, Amanda included. If you did not witness the crime then it is of logic that you keep an open mind.

      Brittany

    • Tom Mininger says:

      How could Amanda have gone all the way to court to testify against Patrick when she recanted the November 6, 2007 police typed statement she signed, one day later on November 7, 2007 in a note to police. She also told her lawyers days later when she was finally allowed access to them.

      The calumny conviction is under appeal to the European Court of Human Rights as well it should be. Amanda was a suspect who was denied legal access and recording.

      The police either broke the law by not recording her (and Patrick’s) interrogation or they are lying that they did not record it. These are the same police who recorded 39,000+ phone calls, other interviews and police station holding room conversations.

      Amanda’s nemeses from interrogation night Monica Napoleoni and Lorena Zugarini have since been spirited away from the Perugia Murder Squad for misconduct on other matters:
      http://www.cbsnews.com/news/amanda-knox-update-could-an-abuse-of-power-investigation-into-several-italian-detectives-impact-the-latest-knox-trial/

      Lisa, I think you’re ignoring the relentless trail of police and prosecution lies on this case.

    • Ian Morris says:

      Lisa Smith accuses Amanda of lying but slavishly defends police and prosecutors who told numerous lies. On Amazon haters such as Lisa gave glowing five star reviews to John Kercher’s book Meredith which was riddled with falsehoods. The haters often lie about the evidence against Amanda and Raffaele. For instance Harry Rag uses the comments section of articles about the case to spread lies. In view of this it is hypocritical for Lisa to accuse Amanda of lying.

    • Brian says:

      Lisa, Amanda & Rafaelle are no more guilty of this crime than you are. Any person with a modicum of intelligence can see the points made by the Kerchers solicitors are idiotic in the extreme. In any other court in the world the judge would be asking if this person was in their right mind & if they were truly a lawyer. As for you this is probably a waste of time because you are obviously blinded to the truth & full of hate for the world & just wish to be malicious & evil. You are nearly as evil as Rudy Guede the one & only killer of Meredith. I feel sorry for you.

    • Nigel Scott says:

      A classic example of confirmation bias from Lisa Smith. It is a testament to Amanda’s fair mindedness that she has allowed the comment to be posted. Anyone who argues for innocence on one of the hate sites is swiftly ejected.

    • Chan says:

      Lisa, please explain how Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito could have removed their DNA, which is invisible, from the crime scene while leaving Rudy Guede’s.

    • Victoria Black says:

      Lisa,
      Those of us who support Amanda HAVE looked at the evidence, thank you very much. And we see that this trial is a unjust and unfair. What exactly are you looking at? Can you even defend your convictions (with EVIDENCE, sweetheart, not with speculation and gut feelings)? If you can’t please kindly go away, you are just another troll. Leave Amanda alone.
      Regards,
      Vicki

  38. Rick Bonin says:

    Amanda, thanks for concisely documenting the prosecution closing arguments here. I can only imagine how difficult that must have been for you. But you know, as I read them, I found myself just laughing out loud at the absurdity of it all. This case really is like Alice in Wonderland, as Mark Waterbury offered several years ago. Stay strong in knowing there are so many worldwide standing right beside you and Raffaele.

    Rick

    • Brian says:

      Amanda, Rick says it all. I personally did laugh out load as I read the prosecutions closing arguments. I can’t believe any body in their right mind could believe such rubbish. As Rick said, stay strong the sane people of the world are behind you.

  39. Tom Zupancic says:

    Just a couple of comments regarding the DNA evidence:

    It was asserted that; “Sollecito’s claim that his DNA on the bra clasp was the result of contamination is phoney. The contamination doesn’t exist.”

    This assertion is not correct. The bra clasp was clearly shown to contain DNA from multiple human (male) donors demonstrating conclusively that it had been contaminated. Contamination of the bra clasp is established by the prosecution’s own evidence.

    Further; “Even if there’s the minimal chance that the DNA on the blade isn’t Meredith’s, it is the DNA of someone whose throat was cut with the knife.”

    Nonsense. To begin, no forensic analysis here ever showed that any human DNA was ever present on this kitchen knife at the site in question. The lawyer making these assertions is obviously quite incognizant of the science of DNA analysis.

    Rather, it is disturbing that such nonsense can be presented in a court of law and taken seriously.

    • Tom Zupancic says:

      Related to my post above, the DNA evidence initially presented in this case has been found to be compromised by what appears to be scientific misconduct on the part of forensic investigators. In particular, there are serious questions regarding ‘falsification of evidence’ as well as potential ‘fabrication of evidence’ by forensic investigators.

      • Daphne says:

        Hi, Tom. I totally agree with your perspective; while the bulk of negative opinions seem to be directed at Mignini, I want to say (or ask if) the case against Amanda and Raffaele was actually initiated by a deliberate misrepresentation of evidence. I believe Mignini was intentionally misled by forensic scientists working on the Kercher case.

        • Caro says:

          Daphne, I’ve seen in another reply you sympathize with Mr. Mignini. May I ask you why? Beside he was “being misled”, I mean?

    • Gregory Thomson says:

      Speaking of evidence kicking around, just down the street from the Firenze courthouse is the Science Museum, home of…..Galileo’s finger…well one of them. Recently two other fingers were found, and are now being studied, for DNA I guess.
      So much science and technology originated in Florence (oh yeah and art architecture. etc) it will be interesting to see how the Florence court responds the pre medieval logic of the uncivil attorneys.

      • Brian says:

        Gregory, give the fingers to Mignini, he could probably make a case against Amanda & Rafaelle for killing Galileo in wild witch sex orgy a few hundred years ago. I’m sure he could make a case that they were there. Mignini would probably get a lot of followers & believers in that too. Yes I being sarcastic but it would be about as true a his efforts to destroy Amanda & Rafaelle.

        • Chan says:

          Well, if they were able to remove their DNA from the crime scene while leaving Guede’s, there would be no reason why they could not be time travelers as well.

    • Alex K. says:

      Recall that Carla Vecchiotti and her colleague Prof. Conti were appointed by the court, not by the defense. Recall that Vecchiotti is a forensic DNA expert with 30 years of research and teaching experience at one of Italy’s top three universities, La Sapienza. Conti and Vecchiotti made it clear in their report that Patrizia Stefanoni’s results belong in the trash can:

      “Relative to Item 165B (bra clasps), we find that the technical analysis is not reliable for the following reasons:
      1. There does not exist evidence which scientifically confirms the presence of supposed flaking cells on the item;
      2. There was an erroneous interpretation of the electrophoretic profile of the autosomic STRs;
      3. There was an erroneous interpretation of the electrophoretic profile relative to the Y chromosome;
      4. The international protocols for inspection, collection, and sampling of the item were not followed;
      5. It cannot be ruled out that the results obtained derive from environmental contamination and/or contamination in some phase of the collection and/or handling of the item.”

      The difference in caliber between Vecchiotti and Stefanoni is enormous. Vecchiotti is one of Italy’s leading forensic scientists. Stefanoni is styled a “dottoressa” only out of courtesy but in reality a non-PhD graduate of a third-rate Italian school without a scientific career, entirely dependent for her livelihood on her bosses in the police laboratory.

      The prosecution has failed to field a single independent forensic DNA expert to rebut Prof. Vecchiotti. They brought in a geneticist, prof. Novelli, who exposed himself as an ignoramus in the field of forensic DNA testing. He knows nothing about contamination, the scourge of forensic DNA labs all over the world.

      • Helen Morris says:

        Innocence, guilt and DNA to one side; C & V demolished their own credibility by using defence consultants to inform their study and by being seen with the Knox family during the appeal. C&V could be the global kings and queens of forensics but they cannot be taken seriously as they were clearly compromised. Knox’s family can take the credit for that. If the findings of C&V are properly thrown out and the original DNA findings reinstated, Amanda can go and thank her best friend and step dad – good intentions have sunk a lot of cases and this is one that is about to see the same thing happen. I think that Amanda could be innocent although I think there are still questions that have not been answered clearly by her or Sollecito. Its a huge shame for Amanda but this case has been poorly handled by her parents and PR since the beginning. Even her lawyers are contradicting their own clients book in court which is not a good look in any legal system.

        • Rob H says:

          Helen – what questions, exactly, have Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito not answered? You have an interesting slant – I don’t agree with your argument, but at least it doesn’t appear to be derived from the usual manic ravings of that nasty elderly roue, Quennell and his acolytes. So, providing these questions you refer to actually involve matters of evidence, I think we would all like to hear them.

          Additionally, what do you think about the conduct of Stefanoni, the quality of her work and her relationship with the prosecution, given your criticism of the court appointed independent forensics experts? (Are you referring to Greg Hampikian?) And, given your criticism of Ms Knox’s parents, how would you have responded to the position they were put in by egregious and inaccurate media reports about their daughter and prosecution leaking? Wasn’t there a need to deal with the reputational damage inflicted on Amanda Knox? What would you have done? What contradictions are you referring to in relation to her lawyers’ handling of her memoir?

        • Alex K. says:

          “C & V demolished their own credibility by using defence consultants to inform their study and by being seen with the Knox family during the appeal.”

          Lies.

          • Rose Marie says:

            Photographs are not evidence of any improper alliance or bias. Photographers caught many people associated with the trial either outside the courtroom, in the courtroom or walking to a cafe or eating somewhere. Also, you suggest court-appointed experts are biased because one of the DNA forensics experts cited in their report also consulted for the defense? If the citation was relevant and the expert was a leader in his/ her field, why wouldn’t the citation be used? I’m sure you could find citations there also of experts who were not associated with the defense.

            Remember that C&V were appointed by the Court – not by the defense. And they had the scientific expertise relevant to legal forensic issues. If the prosecutor or civil parties wanted to object to the appointment of C&V, they had their chance and did not do so.

  40. Som Nathan says:

    lHaving gone through all the evidence, facts, testimonies, if the appellete court in Florence doesn’t deliver “innocent” or “not guilty” verdict then whatever parameters influenced them to arrive at guilty verdit, delivering “unbiased” justice will NOT be one of them. In the end it will prove that they don’t care about “true justice” being delivered. Then, All they care about is protecting the system and people executing that system, and the bad investigation and decisions made based on those investigations.
    As far justice for Meredith Kercher is concerned, that has been delivered, when Rudy Guede was arrested, prosecuted and jailed, however there were flaws in their system in delivering that justice as well. His jail sentence reduced based on lies by Rudy. AK & RS defence never got to cross examine his testimony. For example application of “fast track” justice. Now the remaining Kercher’s are in this case just seeking something “other” than justuce. Their suffering and pain is over now.
    The guilty verdict will prolong the pain and agony for Knoxs and Sollecitos. However, it will all get corrected when the case gets appealed in EU courts.
    And none of the above will matter, if the verdict is “innocent”. The key question is , will the Judge Nencini and nine others on his panel face the ground reality, truth, evidence and deliver that verdict. Will they override the pressure from CSC? I hope so.
    Best of wishes to Amanda Knox & Raffaele Sollecito.
    Som.

    • Brian says:

      I agree. I would like to add that the Kerchers lawyers in Italy are more than happy for this to drag out. They don’t care about the truth or their clients. They are happy getting paid and there names in the media. If they cared they would have advised the Kerchers that Amanda & Rafaelle are innocent & that the Kerchers would be better to pursue a longer sentence for Meredith’s real killer – Rudy Guede.

      • Rose Marie says:

        I understand the bitterness. But I don’t believe for one second that the Kercher lawyers are uninterested in the truth. They are just invested heavily in a different theory. Is money really influencing them? I have thrown that innuendo around myself and unfairly. I don’t think so. I think the $30 Million Euro or whatever it was is symbolic. I think the lawyers and the Kercher family are trying to find justice for Meredith.

        • Sarah H says:

          Rose Marie, if the Kerchers’ lawyers were actually interested in the truth, then they wouldn’t keep repeating so many proven lies.

          And if they were interested in the truth, they wouldn’t have fought the defense efforts to put on expert witnesses.

          And if they were interested in the truth, they would have requested the prosecutor to release the raw DNA files and they would have DEMANDED that the semen stain on the pillow be tested.

          No, the Kerchers’ lawyers are NOT interested in the truth, and there can be only one reason. Acknowledging the truth would mean giving up their dreams of the windfall they’ve hoping for.

          • Amanda says:

            Sarah,

            I think suggesting that the Kerchers are not interested in the truth is over-simplifying the problem. While it’s incredibly painful that they continue to hold onto disproved evidence and allegations, we have to remember that they are overwhelmingly emotionally invested in this case. They are influenced by lawyers who have demonstrated definitive bias in favor of the prosecution. And it may be that they simply can’t yet bring themselves to “let go” of anyone who has been negatively associated with Meredith’s death.

            It’s so very painful to upset the foundations of emotional closure. If I am to hope that the Kerchers may eventually believe in my innocence, I must acknowledge the painful upheaval such a realization would demand.

            a

        • Celeste says:

          Amanda,

          The painful upheaval that you must acknowledge is the realisation that you are guilty. There is absolutely no doubt. The Kerchers are never going to believe in your innocence because it is not true. Once you have come to terms with the fact that you are guilty you can seek their forgiveness. I suggest a daily affirmation, “I am guilty because…” to get you started on the road to recovery. No one should have to live a lie.

          • Angela Smitherman says:

            Celeste – the painful upheaval to which Amanda refers would be undertaken by the Kerchers, once they come to terms with how grossly they have been misled by their own lawyers and the prosecution, not herself. Nor does Amanda need to “seek forgiveness” from the Kerchers since she bears no responsbility for Meredith’s death. You should be able to figure that out but cannot. No surprise there.

            That Amanda handles herself with such grace and dignity in the face of garbage that you and other lowlifes continue to spew forth is really nothing short of remarkable.

          • Sarah H says:

            Celeste, I suggest a daily affirmation, “I am guilty of projecting the darkness in my own heart onto Amanda’s because . . . . ” That should get you started on the road to recovery. No one should have to spit out so many lies.

          • caroline says:

            Celeste I would suggest that you take a daily affirmation yourself, ‘I must not base my opinion solely on what the prosecution and hate sites such as PMF/TKMK tell me’ Your comment just shows how misinformed and hateful you are, its not a funny nor intelligent comment.

            From someone who has read articles, documents, opinions from BOTH sides, I can with great pride and honesty say that Amanda and Raffaele are innocent. I hope one day you too can see the great injustice against two innocent people. Meredith deserves justice and truth, not silly people like you who are so keen and ready to give an opinion, yet cannot be bothered to sit down and ALL the evidence (or lack of it is more accurate)

  41. Mark (aka Supernaut) says:

    just gotta say;

    Amanda Marie Knox.

    That’s beautiful name your family gave to you – you were obviously a blessing to them.

    Courage! Amanda!

  42. Julie Jorgensen says:

    Closing arguments are scheduled for January 20th with jury deliberations starting on January 30th. I have been impressed at Amanda’s kindness and patience with putting her thoughts and answers on this blog. She has done this with good faith and intentions and the belief that people truly want to seek out the truth.

    It saddens me that some are using this kindness and goodness as just another way to attack Amanda and turn innocent things into something sinister. Even as I write this people have taken an innocent account of a prank that occurred in Amanda’s youth and written up what they consider to be an exposé about it, stating that this proves Amanda had a history of a staged break-in.

    It honestly makes my head spin to see how an innocent and youthful prank can be twisted into something devious. I don’t doubt someone like Maresca may try to use this misconstrued story as more non-sensible circumstantial evidence against Amanda.

    This is what Amanda and Raffaele and their families have had to face for 6 long years. Instead of sticking to science and facts and actual, legitimate DNA, the prosecution and those whom we call “guilters” have relied almost exclusively on character assasination. Taking innocent kisses, smiles, clothing, head nods, you name it, to mean something that they never meant.

    To compare an innocent prank from years ago to the legitimate criminal past of Meredith’s true and sole murderer, Rudy Guede, borders on libel. Amanda is nothing like Rudy Guede. We who have come to know Amanda and to support her know these things are ineffective swipes at her character. We continue to stand by Amanda and we collectively vouch for her good character. If you truly want to know what a person is like, ask their family, ask their friends, ask their teachers and those who really know them. Don’t rely on yellow journalism or tainted websites who’s sole purpose is suspect.

    • Julie Jorgensen says:

      I just wanted to add one last thought….I believe with all my heart that Amanda is innocent. I didn’t always know for sure. I didn’t know about this case until I saw her special in May with Diane Sawyer. I wanted to believe she was innocent but I couldn’t tell for sure. So I studied. I read every book I could find on the topic. I read articles and face book pages. It didn’t happen over night but I did finally come to know that she is innocent. I looked at her interactions with her family and her friends and could see her kindness. I listed to her talk and I could see her pain and sincerity and suffering. I am a mother of 4 daughters and 3 grandchildren. I also teach full time. I would not spend most of my free time, without any pay, on this cause if I didn’t believe in it so thoroughly and so strongly. I am not alone. There are hundreds, even thousands of people out there who support Amanda and her family and believe in her innocence. Really good people, who spend hours doing all they can to help get the truth out there to as many people as possible. We stand together, united in our belief of her total innocence and hope you would consider it as well.

      • Amanda certainly is innocent of any involvement in this crime. I recommended to her Dad in a letter that Diane Sawyer be considered for the first “Live” interview of Amanda because I have known Diane since 1997 and she has been a wonderful friend to me over the last 16 years. The Diane Sawyer interview of Amanda is not my favorite, however, I liked her interview with Robin Roberts and with Elizabeth Vargas (and with Matt Lauer) much better for a number of reasons. I know how hurt Amanda is from this false accusation and how worried and scared she has become from this ordeal and the burden it has put on her and her family, but it is not her fault that this case happened – you can tell it and see it in her eyes when she sits with her mother but I am also very glad now that she is stepping out with her own website and is about to finish her UW degree. I also don’t believe that Italy can ever successfully Extradite her back to Italy in the event of a re-conviction. The U.S. Secretary of State is the last person who would look at such an Extradition request and he/she can deny it. I am hoping it never gets that far. The Steve Moore website on her Extradition is excellent by the way. I will be appalled if she and Raffaele are not Acquitted again. I pray for them every day and have asked God The Father to directly intervene so that their Acquittals will be granted by the Court of Appeals in Florence. Once they are exonerated, I think Amanda and Raffaele will have very bright futures ahead of them in their chosen fields. When I began to study the case evidence and the Knox genealogy, I discovered that the name Knox comes out of the McFarland/McFarlane Clan in Scotland. My great grandmother’s maiden name was Elizabeth McFarland on my mother’s side of the family (the Bentley family). I will stand by Amanda and Raffaele and shout their innocence for as long as it takes and if that is for the rest of my life, then so be it. I am hoping that Italy will do the right thing again and Acquit them both because they are – INNOCENT. – Best, Ken

        • Hi Amanda…Standing firm for you and Raffaele and your innocence…come Jan. 30th. Just saw your “fugitive” comments reported a few days ago. – Best, Ken

        • Kenneth Janeway says:

          Amanda: The New York Daily news story posted on Jan. 10th, 2014 has the wrong name listed for Raffaele in the story. The writer lists a Guilia Bongiorno as your ex-boyfriend in Italy which is incorrect. – Best, Ken

  43. Alex K. says:

    In his latest dispatch from the courtroom, Frank Sfarzo reports that Giulia Bongiorno did not play the video of a man climbing up the wall of the cottage during her arguments, showing instead only a photograph from the “re-enactment”. But the video must be part of the court record. It was played at earlier trials and I recall Judge Hellmann referring to the man doing the climb as “Mr. Maori’s office colleague.”

    Was there a specific reason Bongiorno refrained from playing it in the courtroom last Thursday? Perhaps her colleague Luca Maori, due to speak next, is going to show it to the court? And can the Channel 5 video, which seems even more convincing, be also displayed?

  44. floen says:

    If only they had spent their energy on a tougher sentence for the guy who clearly committed the crime – who will be on work release in 2014 – and out of prison in not too long… ridiculous!

    • Kai says:

      yes, it would have made a lot more sense to do so. He’s a very lucky guy.

      • Mike Wiesner (Smith) says:

        Not so much. No one is lucky in this travesty of justice. If Guede had been imprisoned for his earlier burglaries, all those involved (Guede included), would be leading their normal lives.

    • Caroline says:

      @Floen…. i think this is simply because the kerchers have been convinced that guede did not play a vital role in merediths murder, that amanda and raffaele are the ones who orchestrated and carried it out. Amanda in particular has been characterised as pure evil and guede and sollecito as just silly accomplices.
      Considering that the evidence only points to guede this is a tragic thing to believe as it 1) has guaranteed that Meredith has not gained the justice she deserves 2) has created a living hell for two innocent people and their families, 3) I fear this ridiculous obsession with Amanda and Raffaele will leave the kerchers grieving for meredith for the rest of their lives. They will be angry and bitter because they will never feel that justice has been served. Such wonderful friends, colleagues and legal representation the kerchers have that keeps them in a perpetual state of misery!!!

      • Caroline says:

        seriously who needs enemies when you have such charming friends, colleagues, legal representation that lies to you!!!

        • floen says:

          The whole thing angers me – and from my viewpoint it is a message to the world about legal systems in other countries. So much for my dreams of ever going to Italy. This kind of prejudicial treatment is not worth it to me. And with all of the gaping holes in the case, it is stupidity to think 2 guilty people would’ve been hanging out there the next morning, instead of on their way to their planned trip, or with the guy who did it. It is like elementary school logic.

    • Brian says:

      I agree. This is where the Kercher’s should be directing their lawyers, toward getting harsher sentence (ie. life without the possibility of release) for the only killer – Rudy Guede. Instead they waste time & money trying to have two innocent people’s lives destroyed. I feel sorry for the Kercher’s loss but angry at them for not accepting the truth & realizing that Amanda was Meredith’s friend & would not, did not harm her. The Kercher’s should apologize to Amanda & Rafaelle & allow them to join in the family’s grief at the loss of Meredith. That would be the right & honorable thing to do.

  45. Antonio Dimitriadis says:

    why can’t they just appoint biophysicists to serve as jurors to reach a verdict?

  46. Ali Gator says:

    Dear Amanda,

    I have only recently been following your case. You have shown great courage in the face of very difficult times. I wish you all the best during what must be a stressful period.

    I understand that there are many lies about you on the internet and yet you face this persecution with patience and stoicism.

    Fond wishes,
    Ali

  47. Len D. says:

    Most of the arguments listed are unsubstantiated and many are ridiculous and deserving of ridicule but for me two stood out deserving special attention:

    The most dangerous argument (for society):

    “Sollecito’s claim that his DNA on the bra clasp was the result of contamination is phoney. The contamination doesn’t exist.”

    They are pushing the idea that the burden of proof is on the defendant to prove contamination and that the standard of proof is beyond what was shown in the crime scene video and the C-V report. All police results would be assumed to be uncontaminated and thus valid without oversight or proof. Would Italians (or any one else) think it would be acceptable for (say) drug companies to act in the same fashion? We don’t have to prove to you we are manufacturing drugs correctly and contaminant free; you have to prove they are defective….just trust me ;)

    The dumbest argument:

    “They didn’t comprehend what brought them to commit such a horrible act such that they removed it from their minds and convinced themselves that they didn’t commit it.”

    Their explanation: Double, simultaneous, amnesia all over again. Pure BS at it’s finest. This could apply to anyone without a solid alibi for any crime.

    • Bob Magnetti says:

      Maresca’s statement “Sollecito’s claim that his DNA on the bra clasp was the result of contamination is phoney. The contamination doesn’t exist” if taken as true implies that there are 3 or more additional males on the loose because of the unidkentified male profiles found on the clasp. To deny contamination is disingenuous . . .

  48. Julie Jorgensen says:

    I don’t know who to thank for making this great page full of information but I happily pass it along as a wonderful reference or a place to find helpful answers. http://amanda-knox.wikispaces.com/Prosecution+and+Press+Lies

    • Tom Mininger says:

      Thank you Julie. That is an excellent list. I hope the author will continue to refine it and add to it.

      It is a reminder that Amanda and Raffaele should be cleared and that some police, prosecutors and judges should be dismissed for negligence. Some police should be indicted for perjury, and Mignini should be indicted again for abuse of power.

      Of course I feel the same way about the West Memphis Three police, prosecutors, and judge.

  49. Kai says:

    They are not seriously calling these desperate statements arguments?! In a court case? That’s a bit twisted and is that really legal?! I just hope you and Rafaelle will stay strong, Amanda. Or that you have a strong network you can lean in on to be strong for you when you need it. You will go free, because you are innocent. We are lots who belive in you.

    xx

    • Kai says:

      Rudy Guede must be laughing from his cell..

    • (Part I) Amanda: My analysis of the Kercher Closing Arguments will be in several parts because it is so long. I’ve made the following observations (from your summary of them from the Italian):

      1) Kercher attorneys state that “no reasonable alternative can be made who the accomplices are” but would a reasonable person conclude that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are the accomplices without any Forensic evidence to back it up?
      This “no reasonable alternative” approach or method relies on the “process of elimination” conclusion and makes the false assumption that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were present during the crime but a lack of forensic evidence of their collective presence from the crime scene makes this conclusion by the Kercher attorneys false and invalid in its reasoning.

      2) They continue – “Slander is tied to the murder” (by Amanda Knox). The fact is that Amanda’s illegal interrogation without counsel and without an interpreter coupled with sleep deprivation techniques and suggestions by the detectives during her long interrogation sessions led to the slander of Patrick Lumumba by Amanda Knox. This was a separate error on Amanda Knox’s part due to the protocols of the harsh interrogation and has nothing to do with the murder itself. This is a separate issue and occurance in the trial and was just a separate error made by a 20-year old Amanda Knox at the time who hardly spoke Italian during her interrogation.

      3) The Kercher attorneys go on to say “contamination of the bra clasp does not exist” and “there was no contamination” but it has been shown that due to the sloppy forensic protocols by the Italian police that contamination of the bra clasp did indeed, in fact, exist.

      4) The fact that Raffaele Sollecito carried a pocket knife on the night of the murder does not make it the murder weapon or put him or Amanda at the crime scene. The pocket knife used to kill Meredith was tossed by Rudy Guede after he FLED the scene and the very acknowledgement that the Kercher attorneys here admit that Meredith was killed with a pocket knife immediately rules out the kitchen knife taken from Raffaele’s apartment as the murder weapon. We know that the murder weapon was a pocket knife, because the bloody imprint of the knife was on Meredith’s sheets, but this does not mean that it was the same pocket knife carried by Raffaele. Millions of men carry pocket knives for work purposes on a daily basis. Does this sort of reasoning make all of them possible suspects as well? And didn’t Raffaele state in his book Honor Bound that he gave his pocket knife to the police during his own interrogation? Even if he didn’t, this would not indicate that the particular pocket knife Raffaele carried was used in the murder. We also know beyond a shadow of a doubt that Raffaele was at his apartment on the night of the murder with Amanda Knox, so whether he carried a pocket knife on the night of the murder is simply irrelevant.

      5) The Kercher attorneys then state that “even if there is a minimal chance that the DNA on the knife is not Meredith’s, it is the DNA of someone whose throat had been slit”. How do they reach this conclusion? From saliva? And if it is not Meredith’s DNA then who gives a shit and who cares in this trial? Meredith’s Kercher’s murder is the subject and point of this trial and involves the indictment of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito and their innocence and freedom. This is irrelevant. This statement by the Kercher attorneys shows that the kitchen knife taken from Raffaele’s apartment at random by the police a) does not have the DNA of Meredith Kercher on it, and b) it therefore can’t be the murder weapon. The Kercher attorneys never give a reason from their statement WHY they know the DNA from this knife is from a “slit throat.” How can they tell this? Is “minimal evidence” now being used to convict innocent people such as Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito? This is absurd and convoluted legal reasoning that implicates and accuses Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito of involvement in the murder.

      6) There was no need for Amanda Knox to lead the investigation astray because a) she wasn’t there during the commission of the crime – she was at Raffaele’s apartment the entire night, b) She didn’t kill anyone, and c) their alibis were ruined by the Italian police as a result of the hard-drives on Sollecito’s home computer being ruined by police which would have shown they were watching the movie Amelia at the time of the murder in Sollecito’s apartment miles away. Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito could not have been in two places “at once” during the murder. It was Rudy Guede who fled to Germany after the crime and who was known to carry a pocket knife as well who bloody imprint may have very well been left on Meredith’s bed sheets. His presence in her room and his participation in the assault has already been forensically proven by DNA evidence whereas there is no Forensic or blood evidence to link either Amanda Knox or Raffaele Sollecito to the crime scene or to Meredith’s mutilated body (which is in itself excellent forensic evidence).

      -End- Part I

      • Part II – Analysis of Kercher Closing Arguments:

        7) Why is the “independent review” of the Forensic evidence not “principal proof” of guilt? If there is no forensic evidence to connect either Amanda or Raffaele to the crime scene then why don’t we all go to lunch? On the contrary, the forensic evidence, or lack of it, from Knox and Sollecito from Meredith’s bedroom is the “principal proof” needed to show guilt or innocence. The Kercher attorneys are simply trying to state here that black is white and white is black or 2+ 2 = 5 which is utter nonsense. The forensic evidence and lack of it from Knox and Sollecito from the crime scene (bedroom) and Meredith’s own body clearly show that a) they were not present during the crime, and b) they are, therefore, BOTH INNOCENT.
        The Kercher attorneys then go on to state that the forensic evidence and it’s independent review are open to a “diverse interpretation”? Well how diverse? Does this Kercher attorney “diverseness” include: a) Wild theories, and b) Outright making up of evidence that does not exist for the Court to consider?. I guess so.

        8) The Kercher attorneys then state that Amanda Knox “knew Meredith’s throat had been slit”. Amanda Knox couldn’t have known this 100% for a certainty first-hand that Meredith’s throat had been cut when she made her comment in the lobby of the police station because: a) she never was allowed into the bedroom to view Meredith’s body or throat, and b) she wasn’t present at the time of the murder itself. We know her whereabouts during the time of the murder because she answered Sollecito’s front door at around 8:40pm-8:45pm greeting a visitor who needed a ride to the airport whereas Meredith Kercher came home just after 9:00pm and surprised a burglary in progress miles away. Unless Amanda Knox is the “Flying Nun” she couldn’t have been at two places at once and she also had no blood trace evidence on her clothing or body, and no wounds to her hands showing she had taken part in any sort of brutal assault. Amanda’s statement that Meredith had her “f***ing throat slit” was simply her opinion at the police station because all of the witnesses in the hallway outside of Meredith’s bedroom had about the same view of the crime scene. Amanda was also pre-occupied with talking to her mother, Edda, on the phone at the time Meredith’s door was finally kicked in so the information Amanda was receiving was second-hand comments from those looking into the room. Amanda was never allowed into the crime scene (bedroom) and was not there during the actual murder, therefore, her statement about Meredith’s throat being cut was an opinion formed by overhearing comments made by those in the hallway after Meredith’s door was forced open.

        9)Likewise, everyone in the hallway could see who looked into the room that Meredith’s body was covered up because her foot was visible coming out from underneath the covers, therefore, this information was “not exclusively held” by Amanda Knox because she was any sort of participant in the crime itself. She wasn’t a participator in the crime, the evidence of her whereabouts and forensics clearly show that.

        10) The Kercher argument goes on to state that “there is no valid and reasonable alternative to the evidence of guilt”. This again is faulty logic because it assumes that Rudy Guede had accomplices named Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito by the method of “process of elimination” which is not backed up by any thread of real forensic evidence connecting their presence to Meredith’s bedroom, or body, on the night of the crime. Rudy Guede may have had an accomplice but it certainly was not Amanda Knox or Raffaele Sollecito because we know their whereabouts at the time of the murder, so this “process of elimination” method used to accuse Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito is likewise not only faulty but irrelevant because they were in the Sollecitor apartment during the entire murder.

        11) The Kercher Closing Arguments go on to assume that “Rudy Guede had accomplices” but this is not sustainable that it was Amanda Knox or Raffaele Sollecito because of the lack of real forensic evidence at the crime scene and on not only Meredith’s body but also that of Amanda and Raffaele shortly after the crime had occurred (no trace blood or DNA evidence from either of them).

        12) The Kercher’s attorneys go on to assume that “taking drugs leads to a lower inhibition to commit murder.” If so, then wouldn’t the 1967 hippie invasion of California, where lots of drugs were being used, have resulted in a record number of murders in the area, and other crimes, if this theory was indeed true? And why don’t the Kercher attorneys list the global statistics showing the number of actual murders that annually occur when perpetrator(s) are high on drugs and any increase in crime related to light drug use? They repeatedly refer to “light drug” use but supply no raw statistics for us to ponder to reach the conclusion of their argument (i.e. that “light drug” users have a lowered-inhibition to commit murder). Isn’t having a cup of coffee also a form of “light drug use?” Do Coffee drinkers go out and commit random murders more frequently than those who don’t drink Coffee at all?

        13) No motive has been “amply demonstrated” that led to the reason for Meredith’s murder but the Kercher’s legal counsel says otherwise without any evidence being put forward of a valid motive being present. This is also irrelevant in terms of Amanda and Raffaele because they were not there during the crime and Rudy Guede said so in his SKYPE communication to a friend that “Amanda Knox was not there.”

        14) No solid reason is given for WHY Amanda Knox or Raffaele Sollecito have a “strong criminal capacity” and no legal definition is given describing what a “strong criminal capacity” is in any criminal case, or in this particular trial. Again, the Court in Florence is expected to simply accept this theory put forth by the Kercher team in their Closing Arugments without any forensic evidence to back it up or how it relates to either Amanda Knox or Raffaele Sollecito in their actions, but this is also irrelevant because Amanda and Raffaele were somewhere else during the crime and we know they were at the Sollecito apartment miles away.

        CONCLUSION:
        My conclusion is simple and easily reached – Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are clearly INNOCENT of any involvement in the murder of Meredith Kercher and they have been wrongfully imprisoned each -for 4 years – for a crime they did NOT commit. It doesn’t take the “Flying Nun” to figure that out. Free these two innocent criminal defendants, now, from this absurd trial, case, and nightmare so they can go on to lead normal lives. Prosecutor Mignini should be ashamed of himself for indicting them in the first place because a school child can see that THEY ARE BOTH INNOCENT. Mignini has disgraced all of Italy through this huge mistake. From these silly arguments put forth I’m wondering if the Kercher team is using “light drugs” in their total lack of sound legal reasoning. Amanda Knox is innocent. Raffaele Sollecito is also innocent, and two fine young persons have been falsely ACCUSED GLOBALLY and UNJUSTLY IMPRISONED. THEY ARE INNOCENT…ISN’T IT TIME, ITALIAN JUDICIARY TO OWN UP TO IT AND ADMIT YOU’VE MADE A HORRIBLE MISTAKE. They well-deserve immediate Acquittals, again, from the Court of Appeals in Florence, Italy. – Best, Ken

        –END–

        • PART III – Analysis of Kercher Closing Arguments. (Continued):

          15) The Kercher Closing Arguments also fail to state WHY Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito “needed” to take drugs. There is no evidence or reasoning to show why they “needed” to take “light drugs”, the Kercher team has simply taken the verb “took” and changed it to “needed” in order to make this drug use a poor argument to be added to their Closing statements and to try to use this changed verb to connect Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito to the crime and crime scene. Any of the actual drug use by the defendants was “past tense” behavior even though some of it may have occurred during the time of the murder but this is again also completely irrelevant to the motivations and reasons WHY Meredith was killed in the first place because Knox and Sollecito were miles away in his apartment when the crime occurred. So it doesn’t matter if the verb used here is “took” or “needed”. Meredith Kercher was killed for two reasons. A) She was a witness to a burglary whose court testimony against Guede could have easily sent him to jail or prison, and B) She was a victim of a sexual assault (and a witness to a 2nd crime against her body) whose court testimony could have sent Rudy Guede to prison for many years without any doubt. Meredith Kercher had ,therefore, become a threat to a very surprised burglar in the process of committing several crimes and this is WHY she was killed. She also fought hard to prevent the sexual assault that had occurred to her by the intruder. Had Amanda Knox been home that night, she may have also become a victim of these same crimes by a veteran burglar, Rudy Guede. Had Raffaele Sollecito also been present on the night of the murder, he may also have been assaulted or even killed by Guede. Homicide has happened countless times to boyfriends whose girlfriends are being raped by unknown assailants all across the world. The Son of Sam case in New York is one example where this very thing occurred and it is a very common occurrence in homicides all across the United States and elsewhere. Best, Ken – FINAL END-

        • PART IV: Further Analysis of Kercher Closing Arguments: (Continued again):

          The fact that Amanda “knew blood was everywhere” and that Meredith “screamed” are not great revelations “exclusive” to her and do not show Amanda Knox was involved in the murder of her room-mate Meredith Kercher because a) Everyone in the hallway of the residence outside Meredith’s room who looked inside the door could see that there was “blood everywhere” and b) it is a common-sense observation to make that someone who is being stabbed to death might have a very high probability of “screaming” during such an attack. Being stabbed to death and screaming tend to go hand-in-hand I’d say as probable tandem events. These facts are not “exclusive” to Amanda Knox or her knowledge of the crime-scene. She simply was an innocent bystander in the hallway and house when the police arrived like everyone else there but there is still no solid forensic evidence that she took part in this crime or of her presence in Meredith’s bedroom during the crime itself – because SHE WASN’T HOME THAT NIGHT and was with Raffaele Sollecito at his apartment making dinner, watching the movie Amelie, and simply enjoying the company of her new boyfriend at the time. Case Closed, Italy…She’s still innocent and Raffaele is still innocent as well. ACQUIT them BOTH, again. The country of Italy will AVOID paying nearly $650,000 to Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito, collectively, if they are wrongfully re-convicted and the fact that the Kercher attorney team has kept up this silly legal battle over the years has allowed them to bill the Kercher family for thousands of dollars, wrongfully, when they know that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are in fact innocent, so once again, it may be “all about the money.” Again, I am appalled. – Best, Ken
          -END – To Kercher Closing Argument Analysis.

          • Bruce Mckee says:

            Ken I think Amanda said that Mignini suggested during his time with her on Nov 6th that Amanda covered her ears because Meredith screamed. Amanda was confused but she doubt that was true. So that’s how it ended up in the statement for that night.

          • Dear Amanda: Everything will be OK.
            -My Best, Ken

  50. S. Michael Scadron says:

    One more thought. You might run this by your lawyers before rebuttal if you like, Amanda. Kercher’s lawyers say multiple attackers means you & Raf are guilty. Not so. Nencini called Aviello for a reason. Aviello testified, as he has all along, that his brother told him he killed Meredith. Hearsay is admissible in Italy. If Aviello’s brother got with Rudi by conspiracy or happenstance, you have an alternate theory for more than one attacker. This would be consistent with Guede’s early statement that he found a European man in the cottage who had stabbed MK. You might say that there is only evidence of Rudi and no one else but, while true, that begs the question. The argument goes like this: We believe RG acted alone, but if you insist on multiple attackers (because of the ISC ruling or whatever), Aviello provides an equally plausible scenario. Two alternative scenarios, each plausible, equals reasonable doubt. Just a thought.
    Amanda, When I think of the unfairness of it all, I get angry. — Michael

  51. Sarah H says:

    A Catholic priest in the U.K. has this to say about the ongoing persecution:

    “Let’s pray for Amanda Knox and Rafaele Sollecito.
    “They are victims of the Italian obsession with conspiracy theories.”

    By FR ALEXANDER LUCIE-SMITH on Friday, 10 January 2014
    http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2014/01/10/lets-pray-for-amanda-knox-and-rafaele-sollecito/

    • Philippe says:

      This is so nice to hear that. Thank you for posting it Sarah.
      It sums it up exactly. This is what has been so disturbing since the very beginning of this case. The “conspiracy theory” is the closest to express how the prosecution thought and dealt with this horrendous crime. All the trademarks of conspiracy theorists were present: “nothing is what it seems, ( the stage break in) , two or more individuals commited this, reading things like in previous cases, ( words like “reenactment of satanical acts” , I remember were used. ).. It’s amazing that a modern society is even debating this. And that things like not being present in court or wanting to honor your friend in the most simple way by pou ting out to her memorial fund are being held l distorted so as to obstruct the fact that there was never any evidences against you..
      I wish Amanda lots of courage in the next few weeks..

      • Philippe says:

        This is so nice to hear that. Thank you for posting it Sarah.
        It sums it up exactly. This is what has been so disturbing since the very beginning of this case. The “conspiracy theory” is the closest to express how the prosecution thought and dealt with this horrendous crime. All the trademarks of conspiracy theorists were present: “nothing is what it seems, ( the stage break in) , two or more individuals commited this, reading things like in previous cases, ( words like “reenactment of satanical acts” , were used, I remember ).. It’s amazing that a modern society is even debating this. Maybe it is that we are not so advance after all..And that things like not being present in court or wanting to honor your friend in the most humble way by pointing out to her memorial fund are being distorted and held against you so as to still try to obstruct the fact that there was never any evidences placing you guys there in the first place. Just to tell you that many people, like myself, from everywhere in the world are concern about your story and wishing that soon the truth will finally be admitted in court once and for all.
        Bon courage.

  52. Paul Keevil says:

    Working in the legal field, as I do, it is important to remember that matters should be based in evidence and evidence alone. Having considered the evidence I do not accept that either Amanda or Rafael are guilty. The evidence is simply not there. An additional point of consideration. Is it reasonable for a person, who lead a relatively quiet life in Seattle, to suddenly move to a foreign country and turn into a murderess. I personally don’t think so. I have always believed Amanda to be innocent and there is nothing within the evidence to change my view. I would like to add that I have the deepest sympathy for the Kercher family. I hope some day that they come to terms with their loss – but I also hope, one day, they will accept that Amanda was a friend of Meredith and that the punishment of an innocent person only serves to tar Meredith’s memory.

    • Philippe says:

      Dear Paul, I do not work in law, but somehow this case stroke me as a profund injustice from the beginning and I agree with every word you wrote, also towards the kerchers. I am a European, but know america i think quite well, and that point, that very point you make, that it would have been possible for a basically nice all-round american girl to suddenly become a murderess ( and also a skilled forensic scientist.. ?!) and a convince two other person who don’t know each other to commit rape etc.. It’s not real life. It doesn’t fit.

  53. Bruce Mckee says:

    Amanda did you read the Reuters story of the case today in which they claim that was over 4o stab wounds on Meredith body? Making it sound like more then one knife involved in the murder, there of were course 4o or more bruises but only 3 stab wounds.
    It like the reporting about Rudy Guede either pleading guilt or confessing to a involvement in the murder not just being present at the scene. He says Meredith let him into the cottage at 9 pm with the murder happening inside of 1/2 hour. Yet being at the cottage before Meredith arrived also fits in with a real break-in theory what it doesn’t fit is you and Raffaele at the cottage at the time of the murder. Which is why he doesn’t name in you in his early telling of his story because you weren’t there. I guess you know that don’t you?

    Well if it helps I believe you.
    Bruce

    • Tom Mininger says:

      Yes, over 40 BRUISES in a valiant fight for her life and no bruises or cuts on Amanda and Raffaele. The prosecution wants nothing to do with exonerating absence of evidence.

  54. Rose Marie says:

    I am so sorry for what you have been through and continue to go through in facing this nightmare. I admire your courage and strength of character in getting through this. This blog and your comments show your sincerity and heart. I wish you all the best in facing this last hurdle. If the judges have integrity, heart and courage, they will see the truth and stand up for it as Hellmann did. I pray for that outcome.

  55. Lyn says:

    I so admire the strength of character you display facing this adversity Amanda, along with your openness and honesty. Hopefully this will all end at the next SC review and you can reclaim the life taken from you. You shine, as does Raffaele. Keep your face to the sun and the shadows will always fall behind. Holding you both in my thoughts……

    Mai dimenticare….. VINCIT VERITAS OMNIA XX

  56. Riposte says:

    How do these prosecutors live with themselves? It makes my head swim that so many people actually believe Ms Knox was an actual participant in this gruesome murder. Would murderers, young murderers write books about their experiences?

  57. Tom Mininger says:

    Amanda I’m sorry that you and Raffaele were at the wrong place at the wrong time to “win” this awful lottery in life.

    I can’t imagine how painful this vile slander must be but I hope you two draw strength from knowing you are not alone.

    The Italian high court is aiding and abetting a witch hunt. Civilized people must take a stand and condemn it.

    The high court dictating to another court what the verdict should be is tyranny.

    • Rob H says:

      Let us hope the Nencini court does in fact rule according to the evidence. If it does that, there can only be one verdict.

      You are right, Tom, about the duty of civilised people. I am reminded of Martin Niemoller in Germany in the 1930s who, having gone through his own awakening at the rising tide of evil around him, berated the indolence of his countrymen. There are a number of versions of his statement; this is the one Americans will be most familiar with:

      “First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out because I was not a Socialist. Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out – because I was not a Trade Unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out – because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me – and there was no one left to speak for me.”

      Never believe that a version of what has happened to Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito could not happen to you or to your loved ones. There are Minignis, Crinis and Marescas in every city.

      • Eric_B says:

        As a European, I also believe Italy’s tyrannical and irrational legal system must be vehemently opposed.

        It’s a danger not just to Italians but all Europeans.

  58. Luara says:

    The claim that Guede committed the murder alone is not sustainable.
    I haven’t heard a convincing argument for this statement.
    There was an argument that Meredith had only minor defensive wounds on her hands, therefore there must have been multiple attackers. But there are other possible reasons for that.
    And I seem to remember that Guede did have cut fingers, which does suggest he had to fight and argues against multiple attackers.

    If all goes well with the court decision, I hope all who wish Amanda well, celebrate somehow and make our celebrations communal by recounting them here :)

  59. I know it must be very hard to deal with this stuff again, Amanda. I am so glad that you are in Seattle where you can speak for yourself. I admire your courage in facing this head on.

    Stay strong, you are not alone.

  60. emma horsfalk says:

    Inocent will come through in the end stay strong

  61. Kurt Lysen says:

    Amanda: I know the truth as do millions of other people who have read Steve Moore’s book and visited the website. It was painful reading first Rafaelle’s book and then yours. Injustice and the atrocities committed by the Italian courts towards you have been unforgivable. May Meredith’s family find closure in time, but not at the cost of convicting the innocents. Vashon loves you guys!

  62. Bob Magnetti says:

    Two thoughts:

    1) How does a person like Maresca live with himself? Does he avoid looking at himself in mirrors?

    2) How can Italy call this trial ‘justice’? To continue to allow any reference to the ‘knife’ and the ‘bra clasp’ is incomprehensible.

  63. Robyn O'Dell Ford says:

    I can’t imagine how hard it is to hear these awful things being said about you. They all seem to forget that you were Meredith’s friend. I am sickened that Rudy Guede will be out of prison and walking freely. I am scared for someone else who may lose their life by him once he is out. I know this will forever be in your mind, but in your heart, know that you are fighting not just for your life, but for Meredith’s justice as well. Kudos to you.

  64. Frank the Tank says:

    Just Remember… Rudy Guede is likely to be out of prison sometime this year. Seven years for rape and murder… Guede got a hell of a deal.

  65. Luara says:

    Amanda,
    You have my sympathy too, lots of it!
    I hope you are not terribly prone to anxiety :)
    I am, if I had to go through what you have gone through, I can’t imagine what it would do to me. I think I would temporarily turn into a beetle or something, as in the Kafka story.

  66. Mike Wiesner (Smith) says:

    Amanda, I cannot imagine how painful it is for you to listen to this nonsense over and over. Obviously, the prosecution is following the dictionary to the letter. Here is the translation of what they are doing:

    LIE: A lie is a false statement to a person or group made by another person or group who knows it is not the whole truth, intentionally.[1] A barefaced (or bald-faced) lie is one that is obviously a lie to those hearing it. A Big Lie is a lie which attempts to trick the audience into believing something major which will likely be contradicted by some information the audience already possesses, or by their common sense.

    Amanda, everyone knows you and Raffaele are innocent, and in the end these lies will not work. In the meantime, please know how many support you! Despite the positive messages, I know how hard this must be for you. STAY STRONG AND DO NOT LOSE HOPE!

  67. Brittany says:

    It saddens me to know Rudy Guede lets this go on. If there was a way to personally fight for your freedom, your innocence I would.

    X,
    B

  68. S. Michael Scadron says:

    I’m doing my exoneration dance for you, Amanda. My freedom dance worked in 2011 so my exoneration dance will end your ordeal now and forever.

  69. Heather Coy says:

    I’m sure it’s very difficult to write these things. Stay strong. The group of people who realize what nonsense much of this is has only grown — I have watched it happen.

    I cringe every single time that I read an article which mentions ” a third person” involved in the murder, and it’s Guede. The biggest injustice is that he got away with so much because the blame was misplaced. The sad fact: There are people all over the United States who would not even recognize a picture of Guede, and yet they know who you, Amanda Knox, are.

    Sometimes the simplest explanation really is correct.

  70. Mark Gonzalski says:

    This is truly a case of injustice. Two people have been accused and convicted of a crime they did not commit. I will always be on your and Raffaele’s side Amanda. Sending prayers your way! Good luck!

  71. Rob H says:

    This is desperate stuff. One would normally want to confine oneself to a discussion of evidence and the debunking of myth but the emotional cost to Amanda Knox of hearing this nonsense again must be devastating. I can only imagine what it must feel like. My profound sympathies to her. Let us hope that the Nencini jury will confine itself to a consideration of the evidence and not this blather. This is deeply affecting.

  72. Deppie says:

    Amanda, well done for standing up for yourself and keeping an eye on these “arguments”. The type of people who think they can impress with such “arguments”, who think the more sensationalist they get the more society will praise them, will crumble if they are exposed outside of their own community. So, please, if needs be, take this case all the way up to the European Court of Human Rights (where Italy has an appalling record).

    There are many of us who will support you and Raffaele all the way. You are fighting not only for your own freedom (and true justice for Meredith) but for all of us to be free of arbitrary state power, of lynch mobs and mob rule, of whipped-up prejudice, lies and manipulation. You are fighting for all those of us who believe in the rule of law, democracy, transparency and the rights of the citizen to live in a free society and not in fear state persecution.

    You are also fighting for true justice for Meredith Kercher, so that her actual killer is the one deemed guilty, not two innocent people who a crazed prosecutor saw as a convenient way to achieve “glory” for himself. It’s funny how the people who fulminate against you for what happened to Meredith couldn’t care less about Rudy Guede. That shows that their campaign against you is nothing to do with outrage at Meredith’s murder, but that they’re simply a bunch of hate-filled pompous asses.

  73. shirley anne says:

    Amanda, I am so sorry that this nightmare continues for you. My heart goes out to you and Raffaele. You are a young lady with great courage and strength. Sending prayers and positive thoughts your way. God bless you and Raffaele.

  74. Chelsea says:

    Hi Amanda,

    I can’t believe what you have had to go through, how could they have convicted you. Your book is amazing and I thank you for sharing your story.
    I wish you all the best.

  75. Debbie says:

    The perpetuation of this diabolical charade casts a heavy shadow over the start of this new year.
    Amanda and Raffaele, you are both courageous and inspiring souls. I cannot fathom the kind of warped mentality that prevails over this horror, and can only wish for you both that justice will imposed upon the Italian courts, and that they will sway under the pressure of those who believe in you and those who care for international clarity, truth and humanity.

    You both stand tall as exemplary in your strength of character and refusal to bend to the power of evil.

  76. Gu says:

    It must be really hard to hear such arbitary made-up negative slander about oneself from someone who obviously can say whatever comes into his prejudiced mind. Science and the truth tell another story and I hope it will not affect you too much. Stay strong and true to yourself Amanda.

  77. Sarah H says:

    Amanda, I can’t imagine how hard it must be to have to sit there, listening to all these terrible lies. I am so glad you decided to stay in Seattle for the trial. You trusted those courts the first time — they don’t deserve your trust again. I’m hopeful you’ll have a good outcome this time, despite everything. But if there is ever a fight to bring you back to Italy, you’ll have countless friends on your side, fighting even harder to keep you here. You and your family won’t be alone.

  78. Noel says:

    <3 Amanda

  79. HI Amanda: I will analyze your notes on these ridiculous Closing Arguments by Maresca and try to poke holes in them legally at least from a forensic and U.S. point of view. It may be a few days but I will try to Post my responses to these Closing Arguments as soon as I can for you to digest or for more privacy just mail my analysis of them to you before Jan. 20th, if you like. It seems to me that there is a great deal of false assumptions being made as fact instead of real evidence of any involvement by you, or Raffaele, in this crime. What is being put forward by Maresca is just conjecture without any basis in fact or evidence. That is absurd.- Best, Ken

    • Francesco Maresca offers no concrete proof or detail regarding most of his assertions you have summarized in his Closing Argument. Question: Under the criminal Rules of Procedure in Italy, are such accusations, without any documentation or proof, allowed even in Closing Arguments? There is no concrete detail or evidence related to any of his assertions against you and Raffaele (drugs used, drugs found, your lifestyles in terms of sexual habits or medical documentation to back any of this conjecture up). This Closing Argument to me is nothing but character assassination and the worst example of slander one can imagine with nothing to back up these harsh and damaging statements. I know it is exhausting to translate these Closing Arguments from the Italian into English but will you be able to put your team’s Closing Arguments into English, or at least check them yourself in Italian, to make sure that the ridiculous and baseless assertions Maresca and the other Kercher attorneys have made in court are adequately addressed by your own defense team in their Rebuttal and Closing Arguments as well at least for your own information and use because many false assumptions, without any evidence, are being brought forward into Court (that could influence the Court’s ultimate decision) making you into someone you clearly ARE NOT. I am appalled…to put it mildly… at this crude injustice towards you and Raffaele being slandered in such a horrible way without anything to back up these statements by Maresca and the Kercher legal team. Nothing has been entered but pure conjecture and speculation and it is being “paraded” around “as fact” when, at best, these damaging statements in Court are only Theories resting on no concrete facts, or forensic evidence, and are nothing but pure slander re: your true character and personality and that also of Raffaele’s. I am appalled. – Best, Ken

  80. Stacy Morgan says:

    Amanda, I have never read such a ridiculous argument for guilt in a murder as what the Kercher family lawyers have produced. It is beyond ludicrous.

    I have studied your case since just after poor Meredith was murdered. The more I read, the more I learned, the more I came to realize that you and Raffaele had nothing to do with it.

    I cannot even imagine the fear and awful stress you both must be feeling at this point. Just know that many, many of us know you are innocent!

  81. marty Armstrong says:

    They just wont admit they took her words and phrases that mean differently than Italian meaning and put their own spin to make a story and the kerchers dont seem to be able to think in their own

  82. Amanda Richardson says:

    Let’s hope the truth shall set you free. I hope your nightmare ends soon Amanda. My heart breaks for you and Raffaele.

  83. Stephen Clark says:

    This nonsense really just beggars belief. Until Amanda and Raffaele are totally exonerated and Mignini and his cronies are brought to justice there can surely be no faith whatever in the Italian system? Good luck Amanda and very best wishes.

  84. Erin says:

    It’s unbelievable what you and Raffaele have had to endure and maybe you both are meant to shine some light on the injustices of a corrupt justice system and I commend you both for it. But I am truly sorry for what you both must have continue to endure. My heart and spirit are with you all the way!

  85. Caroline says:

    I do not know whether I should laugh of cry when it comes to the prosecutions arguments. I am in shock at what they are saying and cannot comprehend Amanda how you must be feeling. Stay strong the prosecution has no case, you will get through this. We will always be on your side :)

    xoxo

  86. Mason says:

    I have faith in you Amanda. Your story touched me to the core, and I’ve been fighting by your side ever since. You are innocent, and justice always come through one way or the other, and we’re always going to be here for you. <3

    P.S. I have sent an e-mail to the e-mail address you have posted here, have you perhaps had a chance to see it? :)

  87. Julie Jorgensen says:

    Have courage Amanda. Even though you are fighting a non-sensible case with non-sensible arguments, you do have truth on your side. And the truth always has a way of coming out in the end.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>