339 Responses to Springtime &…

  1. Julie Jorgensen says:

    I just wanted to wish Amanda best of luck on her upcoming finals and completing her last full semester of college. You’ve done an amazing job in fullfilling your goals and dreams despite carrying what seems at times like the whole world on your shoulders. I hope your final math class is a breeze and that you can relax and have a well deserved break soon.

    I imagine the weather must really be beautiful now and you sure deserve to have some time to just be outside in nature exploring all it’s wonderful treasures. I will imagine you hiking somewhere in some cool, green field or meadow as I try to surive another inferno summer in AZ. Stay cool and be good to yourself. 🙂

  2. Hide Baert says:

    Dear Amanda,

    I want to apologize for the lousy timing of my ode to your parents.
    The truth is that I was very ticked off at Willis Coleman’s snide remarks about your parents, yesterday, April 28.

    I had been feeling this deep appreciation for your parents for quite a while.
    And I can’t help being reactive now and then: Shame on you, Willis!

    As for the Nencini report, I won’t waste any words on that piece of prose (= fiction and a mind boggling feat of ‘creative writing’)

    Wish you and your dear ones the very best, Hilde

  3. Rob H says:

    So, according to Nencini, the kitchen knife is IN, it seems! Ms Knox stabbed Ms Kercher with that – the mortal blow – while Mr Sollecito stabbed her with another knife. Guede didn’t do any stabbing just the sexual assault.

    Ms Knox presumably stole Ms Kercher’s rent money despite having thousands of dollars in savings because she had the night off and there was an argument about this which led to the murder and Mr Sollecito supported his girlfriend in the killing as all good boyfriends do, apparently.

    Incredible evidence absent fiction.

    Haven’t seen anything yet on the treatment of the DNA but Bongiorno says, basically, that Nencini’s idiocy is outrageous and let’s get to the appeal and have this nonsense thrown out.


  4. Hide Baert says:

    Dear Amanda,

    I just want to tell you that your parents, together with your step-parents, siblings and your extended family carry away my highest esteem.

    As the parent of two lovely boys at both ends of the autism spectrum, I can empathize with Kurt and Edda:
    1. You don’t know what you sign up for (no blame on you or my boys)
    2. We land on this planet without any warranty or user’s manual. Anything is possible.
    3. Being a parent is a 24/7 job; without salary, vacation and retirement benefits.
    Your can’t stop acting as a parent, unless you die or become completely incapacitated.
    4. You can’t protect your child from death, disease, disability (in my sons’ case, autistic regression), accidents, heartbreaks, failed relationships, false accusations etc.
    5. Children grow up and become independent. They can live their own lives and make their own decisions. However, their happiness and welfare remain your business.
    6. There are plenty of compassionate, knowledgeable persons who can assist you and your child.
    However, it is up to the parent to jumpstart the process of getting help; to keep advocating and co-ordinating things; and doing the aftercare
    7. In my experience, having special needs boys, I encountered a lot of empathy and support.
    The other side of the coin is that people can be mean and judgmental, especially the professionals (some doctors;special ed staff and social workers).
    I got flak! and your folks too!
    8. I thank my parents for their unconditional support and trust. They gave me the strength to grow up and care for my kids. They keep me alive and going.
    9. For me, the rewards are manifold: unconditional love from my boys and happiness to see them thrive.
    And I think Kurt and Edda got a lot of reward from you. You have been a loving, creative and resilient person.

    Best wishes, Hilde

  5. Alex K. says:

    The “motivations” report is out… One is left to wonder whether “judge” Nencini is an imbecile, a dishonest sleazebag, or both. Or, perhaps, just an ordinary, unprincipled yes-man looking for promotion. Any reasonable, honest person familiar with the case as well as the basics of science and logic knows you’re innocent – but human logic is apparently too much for those pompous robed porkers. What a fatal combination of incompetence and malice.

    Stay strong and get some respected American legal scholars to expose the absurdity of the Italian courts’ reasoning. Get them to read Hellmann’s straightforward acquittal versus Massei’s ramblings, the supreme court’s “heroin does not hurt memory” and Nencini’s BS. Make it known to the world that Nencini was effectively ordered to convict by the supreme court. Central to this travesty, Nencini was instructed to accept as an absolute truth two “facts” – that Guede did not act alone and that the break-in was staged. Both were “established” during a fast-track trial where you were not a party and evidence was not critically examined. It’s a judicial trap. Can you imagine anything like that in the US, or the UK, or Canada? The mind boggles.

    Note that Russia used the same trap to convict opposition leader Alexey Navalny last year – relying on findings of someone else’s fast-track trial to “prove” that embezzlement was committed by an organized group. You can convict anyone of anything using this trick.

    • Scott says:

      Hi Amanda: Just saw this on Yahoo News…See Link at: http://news.yahoo.com/italy-court-knox-kercher-fought-day-murder-150816135.html . – Scott

    • Willis Coleman says:

      Basically you are objecting to just one element: the determination that the burglary was staged by someone other than Guede. Hellmann did not present sufficient, or really any, evidence to justify overruling Guede’s finalized judgment on this point. Therefore he did not follow the instruction in C.P.P. 238b. The fact that US and UK law do not have a similar provision is something that I’m sure will be raised at extradition but there are many differences between the US and Italian systems and the presumption is that the Italian system is fair. In any event I am interested in the truth, not what the American Secretary of State decides by fiat, and I have no doubt (ZERO as you guys like to say) that the burglary was staged and hence Guede did not act alone.

      • Rob H says:

        If you were really interested in the truth, “willis”, you wouldn’t variously, lie about, misrepresent, and contort the evidence in this case including the testimony of witnesses.

        But you seem to accept, at least, that as a result of the fast track process, the verdict and motivation report of a trial in which the present defendants were not parties and had no standing, whatever construction is placed on C.P.P 238b (since it necessarily interferes with the right to a fair trial), arrived at conclusions about the circumstances surrounding the murder of Ms Kercher which their own trial courts were bound at to take into account (they were not free of its influence) and (in returning a verdict of Not Guilty) the first appellate court should have been constrained, in hindsight, according to Cassation by the extraordinary burden of overcoming them.

        To permit an extradition, if indeed it is actually requested, should Ms Knox’s appeal be unsuccessful, would be a clear breach of Ms Knox’s constitutional rights and so the Secretary of State must surely act to protect her if called on to do so.

        Similarly, the trial process has resulted in multiple breaches of both Mr Sollecito’s and Ms Knox’s human rights under European law, (not just their Article 6 right to a fair trial) and not least from the fact that it has failed to protect their rights guaranteed by the Italian constitution particularly with regard to access to evidence.

        As Sarah H has pointed out here, the fast track process (and indeed C.P.P. 238b), which Guede availed himself of and which has served to fatally damage Ms Knox’s defence by effectively having the “facts” or at least presumption of a simulated burglary and multiple assailants read into evidence in advance of Ms Knox’s trials, post dates the Extradition treaty between the United States and Italy.

      • Alex K. says:

        I have raised a fundamental concern over the fairness of a criminal trial which accepts as absolute, unassailable truth the findings of another criminal trial, especially a fast-track one to which the defendants were not parties.

        Nencini’s report hinges on two such findings: Guede having acted with other persons and the burglary having been staged.

        In contrast, Hellmann and Zanetti opened their hearings by stating explicitly that nothing should be taken for a proven fact in advance except the fact of the murder. This is how criminal trials proceed in countries with the English legal system, and this is the only way to conduct a fair trial.

        The parallel I have drawn between Italy and Russia is damning, as Russia is not only known to be lawless but is reemerging as an antagonist to the free world.

      • Andrea Jonasson says:

        The zero doubt is an error in reasoning. A fundamental capability in scientific reasoning is the ability to let go of an anchoring idea when contrary evidence comes to light. You can’t do this if you are operating on a no-doubt basis.

        You have no first-hand knowledge of how the window was broken and how Rudy Guede entered the cottage, so 100% unshakable certainty is unwarranted.

        The best you can do is assess the evidence that is available to you and estimate a probability. Then you can adjust your thinking as new evidence is introduced.

        The result of your unshakeable faith in a staged break-in is that you are then required to interpret all other evidence as supportive of this premise rather than looking at it and assessing it objectively.

      • GT says:

        Maybe the burglary was staged, hence Guede staged it, just like he tried to cover up so many other things. Totally in his character. What is so complicated, Willis? What about the forensic incompetence and the subsequent mess of the crime scene, who staged that?

  6. Albert (Calleros) says:


    El sistema de justicia penal italiano siempre ha sido una farsa absoluta. Te deseo lo mejor en tu lucha para la exoneracion completa. Mi fe complete en tu inocencia nunca ha vacilado. (The Italian criminal justice system has always been an absolute farce. I wish you the best in your fight for complete exoneration. My complete faith in your innocence has never wavered.)

    Albert (Calleros)
    Fullerton, CA, USA

  7. Victoria says:

    Just love and hugs sweet girl…I’ve got nothing else. Just lots and lots of love and hugs to you. Continue being the beautiful soul that you are.

  8. The lies coming out today, although expected, are sickening beyond belief. That you and Raffaele must endure this is heartbreaking. Please know how many know the truth, and share your pain, although it cannot come close to what you and Raffaele must be feeling.

    These bastards have no shame!

    • Frank the Tank says:

      While sickening, the lies are obvious to anyone with a brain at this point. In spite of ZERO evidence of Ms Knox and Ms Kercher fighting, that’s the (latest) theory of the motive from the judges.

      Italy should be ashamed at this travesty of justice.

    • Stephane G says:

      Though it was expected, I had almost managed not to think about it. They waited for the very last moment, indeed.

      Nothing in the french press for the moment… I read there was a new motive (no surprise. Just how many does it make ?), a fight over money (thanks to Rudy ever-changing testimonies. He also stated he had nothing to do with the murder so I imagine he isn’t a liar only when his help is needed), that though Amanda had asked about Meredith plans just the evening before, their relationships were bad (to the point it could not possibly end with anything else than a bloody murder, I guess) that the two knives theory was still on (of course, what would they do without any forensic “evidence” vaguely linking Amanda and Meredith ?), that though different experts stated from the beginning (the Massei court) the wounds were compatible with a single attacker, Amanda and Raffaele firmly restrained Meredith (without getting any blood stain or leaving any trace or DNA. How did they disposed of their NBC suits ?), that the attackers did not need to have the same motives (what was Rudy’s motive then ? And what a coincidence for all these assailants to meet at the same place at the same time with their various motives !)… and that there are now 337 pages to translate. Another Sisyphus job.

      I feel really sorry for these two tonight. Stay strong, Amanda.

    • Kim Jefferies says:

      The report that came out today verifies what Raffaele recently posted: if the Italian Judiciary says that “cows fly,” then despite all evidence to the contrary, it is deemed to be true, based simply upon their declaration. The Nencini report flies in the face of logic. There is no evidence to support their claims. Forensic science and the crime scene itself show the truth of what happened that night. But the truth was sacrificed long ago for fanciful tales that tell us much more about the twisted minds of Italian prosecutors than they do about this crime. Amanda and Raffaele – your innocence is obvious to anyone with the capacity for discernment and critical thinking. We all must unite and fight this terrible injustice. My heart aches for you and I hope that you are able to draw upon the strength of your many supporters until this crazy and absurd nightmare comes to its eventual end and you and Raffaele are fully exonerated.

    • Glenn Thigpen says:

      Now, hopefully, the report will be dissected by experts and Amanda and Raffaele’s lawyers will be able to eviserate it befor the Court Of Cassation. That is Italy’s last chance to get it right.


  9. Daphne says:

    Hi, Amanda.
    I hope that you did fine in your 2013-14 semesters; I will probably be tackling a classical period fine arts course this summer, just to catch up. Your writing courses sound interesting and tempting; I loved creative writing and my prof really encouraged me to publish, though I never followed up on that. (Maybe I am too tense with all the distractions going on around my home campus to focus on my creative insight right now.)

    I can say without a doubt I am anxiously waiting to read your next best-seller — I think it takes some kind of genius to be able to concentrate on as many courses as you have and still have the energy to focus on your mission. I am so glad you’re doing that. Keep those photos coming!

    • Chris Frait says:

      Hi Daphne,
      Hope your tests went well and you had a good trip to Saxony. Did you see any German castles you liked? 🙂

      • Daphne says:

        Hi, Chris!
        Yes, I managed to pull off my exam all-right. As for Saxony, France, and the rest of Europe, that is still on my to do list. Hope you had a good 4th of July. My birthday message to Amanda got didn’t get through, though. My thoughts are with Amanda and I hope she gets her birthday wish.

  10. Elias says:

    Dear Amanda,

    I hope your spring and completing your degree go well.

    Was reminded of this quote and thought you might value it:

    “The most beautiful people we have known are those who have known defeat, known suffering, known struggle, known loss, and have found their way out of the depths. These persons have an appreciation, a sensitivity, and an understanding of life that fills them with compassion, gentleness, and a deep loving concern. Beautiful people do not just happen.”
    ― Elisabeth Kübler-Ross



    • Amanda says:


      This is a beautiful quote. Thank you for sharing it with me. I will keep aspiring toward that kind of essence.

      My best to you,

    • Stephane G says:

      Hello Elias. How are your legs ?

      Talking about struggling in life, I remember Kubler Ross also said that people were like glass windows : everybody shines under the sun but in darkness you can only see the beauty of those who shine from within 😉

      • Elias says:


        Legs are still irksome, I’ve decided to wait till Fall to start the surgeries. Thanks for asking.

        Hope everyone had a good Easter, and a happy start to spring.

  11. Yvette says:

    Interesting blog. Amanda, your ironic photo of the juvenile penitentiary got me wondering if you have any thoughts about the excellent new BBC3 programme “Teen Killers Life Without Parole” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbRfCA8RF08
    Should young people ever be put on trial as adults? Should a man who has matured in prison and taken responsibility for their actions still be locked up forever? The character named Torey reminds me a lot of Rudy Guede actually.

    • Willis Coleman says:

      Imagine that. A case of a prank that turned into a murder. I have to say, though, I’ve never seen Rudy’s parents by his side repeatedly telling him he’s innocent. That reminds me a lot more of someone else.

      • Andrea Jonasson says:

        @Willis Coleman – That was a real nasty dig. If you had something to say about the program and how you think it relates to this case, you could have expressed yourself much better.

        Be kind whenever possible. It is always possible. ~ The Dalai Lama

      • Paul says:

        There was no motive other than a sense of entitlement to have the experience of committing murder.The parents who can hear their boy discussing the murder on tape still are in denial. It must come down to believing the person with the original idea is the guilty one. It wasn’t difficult to feel some empathy for the boy who didn’t run from responsibility.

      • Sarah H says:

        That’s because Rudy’s parents obviously don’t believe Rudy is innocent.

        Amanda’s and Raffaele’s parents know that they ARE innocent. Of course they’ve been standing up for them.

      • Julie Jorgensen says:

        Willis, I seriously cringe every time your name pops up on Amanda’s blog. I know that no matter what kind or sensible comment someone has said, you will find a way to try and ruin it with your cynical, ridiculous or even hateful reply. If Meredith is truly who you care about then spend your time doing something that is worthy of her memory like setting up a scholorship in her memory or some other good work in her memory. But alas, it’s really not about Meredith for you is it?

      • Som Nathan says:

        Because he is not. He killed Meredith.
        Does he have responsible parents? Nobody documented that.

      • Hide Baert says:

        @Willis Coleman.
        As a parent, I feel angry with your snide remarks, regarding Amanda’s parent.

        You put the cart in front of the horse!
        Good parents give their children a sense of integrity, coping skills, just by example and unconditional trust and support.

        Nobody can choose his parents. Likewise, parents don’t know what they bargain for.

        One of my acquaintances, an oncologist quips to his patients ‘Choose your parents wisely!’
        In the same spirit as the above joke, I can say:
        Rudy didn’t choose his parents wisely.

        Greetings to you and your parents, Hilde

  12. Tom Mininger says:

    Everyone concerned with justice should watch these crime scene handling videos.

    The independent reviewers Conti/Vecchiotti finally showed this mockery of forensics in court during the second trial exposing the bogus case against Amanda and Raffaele.

    The defense had no control over this catastrophe yet the Italian supreme court says that contamination must be proven. The courts also allow CSI Stefanoni to continue avoiding full disclosure of the electronic data files which forensic scientists around the world use to verify each other’s DNA analysis results.

    Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

    • Willis Coleman says:

      What in the videos specifically shows how Raffaele’s DNA could be deposited on the clasp? Nothing. More importantly, the leading lights of the innocence campaign have now embraced the police frame-up theory, so allegations of sloppiness would seem to be moot.

      • Sarah H says:

        In the video, you can clearly see the clasp being passed from one obviously dirty glove to another. Those gloves could have been anywhere, touching anything, before they touched the clasp. In particular, they could have touched the knob Raffaele had touched when he tried to open the door to the bedroom.

      • Andrea Jonasson says:

        DNA is too small to see, so of course you can’t see a dust bunny with Raffaele’s name printed on it. Likewise, the dirt spot on the glove of the person handling the clasp does not have a ‘contains DNA of RS’ label on it. What you can see is many opportunities for contamination. The theory of contamination is supported by the multiple male donors in the sample analysed by Ms. Stefanoni.

        Oh look a squirrel! According to Willis Coleman, we can forget about contamination because ‘the leading lights of the innocence campaign’ are saying the bra clasp DNA was a frame-up and not contamination. Be specific in what you say, Willis. Name names, and tell us exactly what is being said and by whom. Then a rational discussion can ensue.

    • Stewart says:

      ‘The Italian supreme court says that contamination must be proven.’
      @Tom Mininger

      Those judiciary people are so fussy.

      • Wayne says:

        Contamination must be “proven”. That is almost the most absurd statement I have ever seen come from a court. Please construct a scenario where contamination is “proven”. I dare you.

  13. Martin says:

    You’re incredible Amanda. Such a creative, intelligent, beautiful and strong woman. Keep fighting, your innocence will be proven.

  14. Sam Allison says:

    Howdy, all…

    My folks just returned from a three week tour of Italy and, in their epic cluelessness, bring me as a gift — Perugian chocolates! I can’t in good conscience enjoy these, of course. I thought, as an act of protest, that I would return them to the editorial department of an Italian newspaper with a statement respectfully declining them and asking in their stead true justice for AK, RS, and MK. Considering that it’s a very long shot my statement will be published, it’s a symbolic gesture, yes, but it’s the least I can do. Two things: first of all, I need someone to translate my statement into Italian and, secondly, I need suggestions for papers that will be even marginally open to such a letter. Ideas?

    • Andrea Jonasson says:

      Enjoy them in honour of the Perugians who supported Amanda and her family during her incarceration, the ones she described in Perugia, ti voglio bene. Good chocolate should not be wasted. You can still write the letter if you like! 🙂

      I know for a fact that not everyone in Perugia hates me or believes I’m guilty. My family and I have received tremendous support from many Italians and Perugians in the form of verbal and written messages of sympathy and solidarity, legal and linguistic assistance, generous hospitality, and friendship.

      Ironically, Perugia Vi Odia simply reminds me of the part of Perugia they don’t represent. My love extends to the clear-headed, compassionate, and generous Perugia that my family and I came to know throughout my wrongful persecution and imprisonment at the hands of certain proud and hateful authorities, empowered by certain proud and hateful individuals.

  15. Doug Moodie says:

    @ Willis Coleman. Thanks for the link and the reply. Your [APRIL 23, 2014 AT 10:40] post gives this quote: Q-”Have you ever seen Amanda handle a pocket knife?” [RS] A-”No.”, but your link gives this quote: “Have you ever seen Amanda handle a pocket knife? No, she doesn’t seem like that type of person”

    Do you not hear in the longer quote that Sollecito is answering about Knox’s familiarity with and comfort level around the use of pocket knives and other small knives; and also that the question is asked and answered at a high level of generalization? With the last sentence omitted, the way you presented it, the quote appears to read more like RS is speaking about Knox’s handling, as in having in her hand, one of RS’s knives.

    The fact that you did not include the full quote leads me to question your sincerity. A lot of people on the guilt side come here merely to belch out their misperception of Knox, without any real attempt at understanding. You though are obviously intelligent, knowledgeable, and capable of good rational insight and argumentation. Do you really not see the difference in the two posts? It’s easy for me to think that you do, and that’s exactly why the last sentence was omitted.

    You don’t need to convince me of your sincerity, obviously, and I cannot get into your head to know what’s true for you or not. But, if your arguments lack your own conviction, in the long run you’re only damaging yourself. Skewing arguments to make Knox / Sollecito appear guilty may extend whatever satisfaction you get out of relating towards Knox ( and the pmf crowd) as though Knox were guilty, but in the long run it will only make the day of reckoning much harder, the day when you process that your true purpose was to help crush the lives of two innocent people. Perhaps you don’t realize it, but acting destructively towards the lives of others will change your own relation to life for the worse.

    This is a small example, and I am not speaking only to you Willis Coleman, but to any number of guilters whose posts seem intentionally incomplete or one-sided.

    • Som Nathan says:

      I agree Doug Moodie.


    • Willis Coleman says:

      The last part of Raffaele’s answer is irrelevant. What does the type of person she is have to do with whether or not he saw her handle a pocket knife? Psychologists, statement analysts and body-language experts agree that over-explaining indicates a person with something to hide as he feels compelled to offer extraneous information as a means of compensation.

      • Andrea Jonasson says:

        There is handle, and there is handle. I could touch a gun, but I couldn’t handle it. I don’t know how, and I am not that kind of person.

        The last part of what he said is relevant, and goes to meaning. It’s just explaining, not over-explaining.

        I wonder what the psychologists say about over-interpreting? That’s what you are doing.

        • Elias says:

          “Over-interpreting” would fall under “perception is projection,” and there for a kind of confirmation bias.

          In other words reactionary communication with a lack of critical, logical, and clear thinking.

      • Rob H says:

        It’s not for you to edit quotations, “willis”. This is a clear attempt to skew evidence in favour of your position. And it is not for you to decide what interpretation should be placed on the meaning of words by everyone else, either. The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

        This sort of behaviour is a trademark of the disgraced and disturbed fraud who posts elsewhere as “the Machine” and “Harry Rag”.

        Another example of this skewing of the truth is the oft repeated “I was there” quotation from Ms Knox’s eavesdropped conversations. Whereas it is clear she was referring to Mr Sollecito’s apartment, all the colpevolisti and weird little Maresca continue to insist she was talking about Via Pergola.

        But again, the question of Mr Sollecito’s knife collection is utterly utterly irrelevant to this case as is your pop psychology.

      • Doug Moodie says:

        I’ll take you at your word that you do not understand the “relevance” – i.e. the shift in meaning – provided in the last part of Sollecito’s ask fm answer. Is English your second language? We all put our integrity on display through our actions, even our posts here. How you want to display your integrity is really your own business.

        My concern is that you are just being argumentative. If you did not perceive a difference, why did you truncate your quote?

    • Wayne says:

      Nice summary. This is why the classic court pledge is to “tell the truth, the WHOLE truth, and nothing but the truth.” Anything else is an attempt at deception.

    • Frank the Tank says:

      Anybody who isn’t a moron who has reviewed the motives, evidence, and likely timing of the murder knows beyond a reasonable doubt that Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito are innocent and Rudy Guede is the lone rapist and murderer.

      We all know that the guilters are compulsive liars and are projecting their obsession with Ms. Knox on everybody else. That’s why they continue to obsess on irrelevant trivia, rumor, slander, and the like.

      Plus, let’s face it… it gets really lonely for a 40-something man living in his parent’s basement. At least this obsession with Knox and Kercher provides some sort of meaning to these people’s lives…

      • Peter Mathews says:

        So Alan Dershowitz is a moron then? Well I have never been a big fan but he has a brilliant legal mind.

    • Andrea Jonasson says:

      There are many examples of the words of Knox and Sollecito being selectively quoted, taken out of context, or mistranslated to give a meaning that the original words clearly never had. Like you, I cannot understand why anybody would want to twist the truth.

      Guiliano Mignini, in a report: “A text message was found to have been sent at 8:35PM of November 1st by KNOX’s number 3484673590 to 3387195723, that of her co-defendant Patrick, in which she wrote “Ci vediamo dopo” [“See you later” or lit: “We’ll see each other after”] thus confirming that in the following hours KNOX would find herself with Patrick in the apartment where the victim was.” The complete quote is “Certo. Ci vediamo più tardi. Buona serata" (Pro-Guilt Myths About The Meredith Kercher Case by Injustice Anywhere at murderofmeredithkercher.com). Mr. Mignini left off the closing “good evening” to imply that she had an intent to meet Patrick later that evening.

      Perugia law enforcement leak, Dec. 1 2007 quoting Amanda Knox in a recorded phone call to her mother from prison: “I was there…” implying that she meant that she was at the cottage during the murder. The full quote: “Amanda: It’s stupid. I can’t say anything but the truth, because I know I was there. I mean, I can’t lie on this, there is no reason to do it.” meaning that she was at Raffaele’s, an interpretation accepted by Judge Paolo Micheli in her 2008 pretrial. (Amanda Knox “I Was There” Doesn’t Put Her At Murder Scene by Candace Dempsey). This “clue” was used earlier by a judge in a hearing to decide whether or not she could be moved from prison to house arrest, saying “it can certainly be read as a confirmation of the girl’s presence in her home at the moment of the crime.” (Waiting to be Heard by Amanda Knox)

      Barbie Latza Nadeau, in Newsweek quoting an excerpt from Amanda’s diary: “I think it’s possible that Raffaelle went to Meredith’s house, raped her, then killed her and then when he got home, while I was sleeping, he pressed my fingerprints n the knife.” (Perugia Murder: What Defense Lawyers are Planning by Barbie Latza Nadeau. She took her source from an Italian – English translation of an English – Italian translation of Amanda’s diary. Here is th original and the translated translation for comparison:

      The original, as written by Amanda: “Unless Raffaele decided to get up after I fell asleep, grabbed said knife, went over to my house, used it to kill Meredith, came home, cleaned it off, rubbed my fingerprints all over it, put it away, then tucked himself back into be, and then pretended really well the next couple of days, well, I just highly doubt all of that.”

      The doubly-translated source for Barbie’s article: “That night I smoked a lot of marijuana and I fell asleep at my boyfriend’s house. I don’t remember anything. But I think it’s possible that Raffaele went to Meredith’s house, raped her and then killed her. And then when he got home, while I was sleeping, he put my fingerprints on the knife. But I don’t understand why Raffaele would do that.”

      (Waiting to be heard by Amanda Knox)

      I cannot begin to imagine how frustrating it must be to have people jumping all over everything you say and twisting it to mean something that the words just don’t say. Maybe this is one of the reasons Amanda called her book Waiting to be Heard.

      • Doug Moodie says:

        Barbie Nadeau is the crowned queen of innuendo. She has a genius for being able to fabricate clear accusations against Knox without providing any actual facts upon which a slander charge could be brought against her. I have come to believe that for Nadeau, she is unable to distinguish between her own ambition and the truth. If the opportunity to write and make money from a tabloid shocker like “the true story of a student killer” presents itself, then the facts that would substantiate that story must be true, at least in the wicked twisted mind of B. Nadeau.

      • David Turnblom says:

        Well stated. It is sad that there are so many who would twist the truth, but beyond frustrating that most of those who have are those who have some level of authority. (Sorry about the lateness of this reply. I may be slow, but I put careful thought into my responses. I want Amanda to triumph over this difficult trial, more so now that I have seen the nobility of her character.)

  16. Brian says:

    I have just finished reading a very disturbing article which confirms what many have believed for a long time – that the U.S. Embassy in Rome failed disastrously in its duty to protect Amanda (or any US citizen) when she was in trouble. The only thing they did was to supply a list of English-speaking Italian lawyers to Amanda’s family, nothing more. We can only speculate what might have happened if the Embassy had been more aggressive in trying to protect Amanda’s legal rights.

    True, she did not contact the Embassy and ask for help – but she was 20 and naive and the Embassy should have recognized from the beginning that she needed them to watch out for her, whether or not she knew enough to ask for the protection to which she was entitled.

    Here is the link to the article: http://www.groundreport.com/how-the-us-state-department-has failed-amanda-knox/

    • Andrea Jonasson says:

      I can’t find the article any more. I saw it once to fix the link, but it seems to have been removed from Ground Report.

    • Brian says:

      Sorry I realized that I had mistyped the link. Went to doublecheck it this morning and the groundreport page seems to have disappeared or been shut down.

      The correct original link was http://groundreport.com/how/the-us-state-department-has-failed-amanda-knox/&ct=ga+cd=CAEYACoTMjYyNzQzNjkzMjlxNDYxMjUONDlaODRhY2lwOWFmZWRkZDdiOTpjb206ZW46VVM&usg=AFQjCNFp87ilZ2D9QT4Shh40G7EYlb-skA

      Maybe it will be restored again later.

    • quixotic1 says:

      it’s just easier to type “Amanda Knox” in the search box in the upper right corner of the home page of http://groundreport.com/

    • Brian says:

      Yes, I found it again also, there must be some hidden code in the URL. At any rate, just in case it “disappears” again, I coped the article and here it is:

      How the US State Department Failed Amanda Knox
      Share on facebookShare on twitterShare on emailMore Sharing Services5

      Article Views1930
      Colleen ConroyGroundReport | Author: Colleen Conroy
      Filed Under: News, Opinion | Posted: 04/25/2014 at 10:39AM
      Comments | Region: United States | Washington

      As it turns out, the US Department of State does have a staff of lawyers after all. No fewer than 175 of them are busily working their brains to the bone right now in the State Department’s “Office of the Legal Adviser” in Washington, DC. Not only that, but according to their website, these lawyers are among the very best and very brightest their country has to offer:

      Competition for attorney positions in the Office is intense. Approximately 13 to 15 of the nearly 1,000 applicants for permanent employment each year are selected.

      Outstanding academic performance, analytical ability, writing skills, special honors, or achievements, professional experience, publications, and relevant extracurricular activities are important considerations in all selections.

      That page must have been updated in the past three years, because from 2007 through 2011, the Office of the Legal Adviser seems instead to have been run alternately by a confederacy of dunces, a ship of fools, and a pack of those chimps with typewriters who, in a million years, may or may not reproduce Shakespeare.

      On November 6, 2007, a serious legal issue came to the attention of the American Embassy in Rome. Officials were informed that an American college student at the University for Foreigners in Perugia, Umbria, had been arrested for sexual assault and participation in voluntary manslaughter. By the time the consulate received notice, Amanda Knox and her Italian boyfriend, Raffaele Sollecito, already had been interrogated, arrested and imprisoned. Local and national officials held a press conference in Perugia the same day, proudly pronouncing the case closed. It was big news, impossible to miss in Italy, and covered in the UK and US as well.

      By the time Amanda was locked up on the 6th, Perugian police had broken at least three Italian laws in their prosecution of her. They interrogated her as a suspect without providing her with an attorney, they emotionally and physically abused her during the interrogation, and they did not tape the interrogation. US officials may not have been aware of the latter two crimes at that point, but they were fully aware Amanda had been questioned without legal counsel — they were the ones who directed Amanda’s parents to the two English-speaking Italian lawyers they would hire to represent her.

      For some reason, it took six days for US consular officials to make their way to Perugia to meet with Amanda in her cell. By that time, it was publicly known via the news media that Amanda had recanted the statements she had made during the interrogation, and that she had written a note to the police on the day of her arrest complaining about them having yelled at her and hit her.

      Around the same time, the American Embassy in Rome cabled the following information to the State Department in DC:








      17. NOTIFICATION: Embassy Rome Consular Section was notified on November 6, 2007 of Ms. Knox’s detention for interrogation by police and was notified of formal arrest on November 9, 2007.

      18. ACCESS: ConOff visited on November 12, 2007. Subject’s mother and lawyers have also visited her. Subject’s father scheduled to visit her on November 13, 2007.

      Skeptics in the United States were suspicious of the case from Day One. Amanda’s American family, friends, teachers and former employers protested vocally. Within weeks, questions about irregularities in the case gave rise to news articles and blogs in which the proposed evidence was examined and analyzed. The number of people who became convinced of Amanda’s innocence grew even before her first trial started in January of 2009.

      Not only did it not make sense that someone with Amanda’s background would be involved in a homicide, it also did not make sense that the American Embassy in Rome seemed to be lending more credibility to the Italian legal system than to its own citizens. It has been known for decades that Italy’s judicial processes can be problematic. According to the European Court of Human Rights 2013 statistics, Italy ranks second only to Turkey out of 47 countries in terms of human rights violations the court ruled on from 1959 to 2013. No one should be more aware of that fact than Embassy officials whose job it is to protect American citizens traveling abroad.

      In Amanda’s hometown of Seattle, Michael Heavey, a Washington State Superior Court Judge, was an early critic of the prosecution. In 2008, within months of the arrests, Heavey wrote personal letters to three separate Italian magistrates, asking them to look more closely at the unlikelihood of Amanda having participated in the crime. As a lawyer and a judge, he refuted the case evidence and requested that Amanda and Raffaele’s trial be moved out of Perugia. In the strongest terms, he protested the many leaks of false information that had flowed from the prosecutor’s office, the police and the prison, writing, “Amanda Knox is in grave danger of being convicted of the murder because of improper and false poisoning of public opinion and judicial opinion.”

      Amanda and Raffaele were indeed convicted at the end of their first trial on December 4, 2009. Three days later, at a daily press briefing in Washington, DC, news reporters who were following the case had some hard questions for State Department Spokesperson Ian Kelly. Several journalists expressed their curiosity about why the department so far had said so little about the case, and why the aspects of the trial that looked suspicious to others did not seem irregular to the department:

      Reporter’s question: Well, Ian, just – you know, in some cases – granted, they’re not all the same – but in previous cases dealing with Americans, the State Department often is quite vocal and quite out there publicly in terms of commenting. It’s been quite noticeable that there’s been very little comment, and especially that statement yesterday by the Secretary that she was busy with Afghanistan and actually wasn’t able to be up on it…..

      Reporter’s question: ……So none of these things up until now, have raised a red flag with you? Because if they had, as Jill said, in the past, you have kind of raised the red flag when you feel that some things in the trial are questionable. And we haven’t really heard anything from you on that.

      Spokesperson Kelly assured those in the audience that the State Department had been watching the case closely and would continue to do so while staying in touch with Amanda and her family. “The Italian Government has allowed our consular officers to sit in on these trials. They’ve given us regular consular access to Amanda Knox. And we’ll continue to play that kind of monitoring and supportive role.” He added, “It’s still early days” — although by that time Amanda had already been in prison for two years — and “…..we need to let this process play out.”

      The truth is that at any given time, at any point in the process, the American Embassy in Rome or the Department in DC could have stepped in, at least with opinion if not action. One wonders what prevented them from protesting an attorney-free interrogation and arrest in the first place.

      This was not the Vatican, where a diplomat might think twice about challenging the beloved spiritual leader of the world’s 1.2 billion Catholics. This was not even Rome. This was Perugia, about which Italian journalist Frank Sfarzo told Rolling Stone, “Nobody here is good at their job. If they were, they wouldn’t be in Perugia.”

      After the first chances for immediate release of Amanda and Raffaele were missed, another convenient opportunity for US intervention presented itself barely three weeks into proceedings, when the actual murderer, Rudy Guede, was apprehended in Germany and brought back to Perugia. At that point, the police released one wrong suspect, but chose to keep Knox and Sollecito in custody, despite the lack of evidence against them as well as Rudy Guede’s failure to name them as accomplices. All this seems to have been okay with the American Embassy, as they made not a peep.

      Some of the indignities that befell Amanda during the first year were legal in Italy while others were not. All should have raised the hackles of State Department lawyers. Her phone was wiretapped; she was forced into cautionary pre-trial detention for an entire year; in prison, a lascivious male guard accompanied her to every doctor visit; her personal diary containing private medical information was removed from her cell by police and subsequently published by a journalist.

      Maybe handling the situation aggressively felt awkward and uncomfortable to employees at the US Embassy in Rome because of their personal relationships within Italy. That should not have been an obstacle, though — they already had referred the matter to the Secretary of State in Washington, DC as soon as Amanda was arrested. The case could have been investigated and addressed by any number of personnel in the Office of the Legal Adviser, or in one of its sub-offices, including the Office of European Affairs; the Office of Consular Affairs; the Office of Human Rights and Refugees; the Office of Law Enforcement and Intelligence; the Office of the Assistant Legal Adviser for Treaty Affairs. Relieving the Rome consulate of the burden of handling the controversial case seems as if it would have been standard operating procedure.

      On May 16, 2011, during Amanda and Raffaele’s first appeal trial, Judge Heavey wrote another letter, this time to the President of the United States, Members of Congress, the Secretary of State, and the press. Citing specific articles of the Italian constitution and Criminal Code of Procedure, he listed the legal and ethical violations against Amanda, asking repeatedly, “Why did consular officials do nothing?”

      Later the same year, former Department of Justice attorney S. Michael Scadron posted an essay on the news website “groundreport,” titled, “Why Won’t the State Department Speak up for Amanda Knox?” He wrote,

      The State Department has remained curiously silent throughout Knox’s ordeal, undoubtedly adhering to a long-standing policy of non-interference with the judicial process of a sovereign nation. But that policy is supposed to yield where mistreatment or rights violations have been shown. Italy is not China or North Korea or Iran, but that is all the more reason for concern…… even in the face of concerns expressed by Italy’s own legislators, our State Department remains mum.

      Michael Heavey and Michael Scadron, like so many case followers busy with their own families and lives, felt strongly enough about the case to research the facts and illuminate the injustice. There has never been any sign that US State Department officials were conducting similar research, nor that they noticed or reflected on the groundswell of volunteer activity in support of Amanda and Raffaele. Unlike State Department lawyers, any number of pro-innocence commentators can enumerate the scientific failures of the prosecution’s evidence, the illogic of their claims, and the names of the Perugian police officers who eventually were investigated for criminal activities of their own.

      Ironically, the State Department’s neglect of Amanda Knox’s predicament may reveal one silver lining. Those familiar with the case know there is little common ground between the pro-innocence and pro-guilt factions of activists who write and campaign on behalf of the murder victim and the defendants. On May 18, 2011, a leading pro-guilt website, “True Justice for Meredith Kercher,” posted a report that read, in part:

      Andrea Vogt Obtains New Rome Embassy Cables From State, Still Showing Zero Concern About Knox

      They were obtained under the Freedom of Information Act. These now provide a complete overview.

      The new cables are as bland and routine and unconcerned about Amanda Knox as ever.

      There was no smoking gun among them, as the Knox PR campaign had so very much hoped for. The State Department will never move on this case based on how Italy handled it.

      While there is no evidence a “Knox PR campaign” was hoping for anything from the State Department at that point, the two groups might now agree the released cables did indicate State was as “unconcerned about Amanda Knox as ever.”

      Amanda and Raffaele were exonerated of the murder charge by an Italian appeals court in 2011. This past January, they were found guilty again by a different court of appeals. In the coming days, case followers are expecting the release of the written motivations for the decision that reconvicted them. According to predictions, the presiding judge will explain that he was required to find the defendants guilty by virtue of the fact that the accusations and evidence against them were accepted by the courts that ruled against Rudy Guede. In other words, Amanda and Raffaele will have been tried and convicted at trials in which they were not legally represented.

      If this happens, will the US State Department finally speak up?

    • GIA says:

      This is NO surprise to me! I’ll do some speculating here and of course I might be wrong but a few things that come to mind are this: First, Amanda and her family as decent, law abiding citizens as they are – appeared to not want to be a bother to anybody including embassadorial support. They deserved protection and representation but did not receive it to the fullest extent.

      Secondly, I believe there’s an underhandedness happening with regard to the ‘political’ correctness of it all. Italy and America have a relationship and despite the fact that she’s an American first, people in high places with ancestral ties to Italy are playing with those loyalties and whatever money comes with it.
      Other factors which have ‘race’ inserted into it:
      We have a bi racial victim who is a British citizen.
      We have a ‘black’ murderer, disenfranchised, drug using, Guede, adopted by Italian family individual who was allowed to wreak havoc around Perugia even before Kercher was murdered.
      We have an attractive white young American woman who appears to be wealthy and we have an attractive young Italian man who appears to be wealthy. (Insert suggestion that they are ‘entitled sorts’ who liked to play on the dark edge of the blade so to speak).

      Because Amanda (coerced into) giving a statement about LaMumba (A black man, her boss) to police, it pumped up efforts on behalf of Kercher’s family to remediate them and LaMumba but positively from the start they wanted KNOX more than anything, no matter what. They thought they could frighten Sollecito enough that he would ‘tell the truth’ and throw Amanda under the bus.
      I don’t think they at first counted on his integrity – since so much of the Italian policing and investigatory tactics is based on THREAT, deceit and fear-mongering. Therefore Sollecito was collateral damage. When they couldn’t prove he did it either, (had no motive, no reason etc) they simply created reasonable doubt (ie, DNA/bra clasp and knife).

  17. Glenn Thigpen says:

    There are a couple of points that you missed completely. I was not talking about DNA only, although that is surely in the mix, since there was absolutely none of Amanda’s DNA found in Meredith’s room. Her DNA was only found in the places that you would normally find them.
    My comment was, in essence, how could Amanda and Raffaelle have participated in that murder without leaving the same types of traces that Rudy Guede left??? Foot prints in the blood, etc. Rudy’s DNA was left on Meredith’s handbad, and I think her cell phone. DNA which survived at least a night in the open.
    How could they have participated in the murder and and not gotten any blood on their bodies? Remember that they were both tested for blood and none was detected. Raffale’s partment was tested for blood. None detected. According to the several experts that have weighed in on the case, there is no way that anyone could have participated in that crime and not had blood transfer to their own bodies.
    Anyone who was in that room and actively participating in that murder would have left some traces in the blood that was so profusely spilt. Only one person’s traces, of any type, are there. Just one. Not three. Not even two.
    Also, just what is your education and experience in CSI???


    • Nasim says:

      Do you dispute that there are violent crimes involving multiple assailants in which the DNA or prints of only one of the assailants was found? It’s likely that the only reason Rudy’s DNA was found is because he was cut and he had what he claims was consensual oral sex with Meredith. There were luminol spots in Raffaele’s apartment. They could have been blood. There was no confirmed blood found in Rudy’s apartment either.

      • Som Nathan says:

        Obviously, Rudy guede is lying, and had “friends” in Perugian police department. Breaking-in via a window, stealing, threatening his victims with the knife he always carried, lying when caught was his MO, prior to killing Meredith. Extrapolating his prior criminal activities, all pointers of guilt are towards him, no one else. He left enough forensic (physical) and genetic evidence at the murder room, that his “police friends” couldn’t ignore.
        If Raffaelle and Amanda were equal partners in crime, then why there is no equal or let’s say no evidence at all. Answer is very simple and straight forward, “AK& RS were not there when RG attacked and killed MK”.
        “Consensual sex”, after slashing MK, yeah right?
        I have found this very interesting, that whatever RG has said the guilters and haters like, “nasim, somebody, Willis Coleman, pk77” believe it blindly, no questions asked. However, whatever AK or RS have said or say they immediately start dissecting it and find flaws and try to pin them down.
        Look guilters, I don’t know what interest you represent or who you represent or what your motivation (money, fame, career advancement, pay raise, awards) is, to see two innocent young adults locked away for life as if they are real threat to the society. Where as RG had amply demonstrated via his prior criminal activities that he was threat to the Perugian people, yet nothing was done to stop him because of “friends”. Among the friends Giuliani mignini is a GREAT suspect.
        Most of us do not want innocent people locked away, because they did not commit this crime. And prior to this senseless murder AK & RS never demonstrated anti-social activities.
        Nasim, somebody, pk77, Willis Coleman your arguments here are senseless and at time sound funny. The more you argue against AK & RS , then you demonstrate more and more support for the real cold blooded killer RG.

        A day will arrive when you will regret your current stance, unless you are part of prosecutors team or Italian/British media.

      • Tom Mininger says:

        This was a struggle with a knife attack and lots of blood spatter. Any other participants would have blood transfer evidence against them. Do you believe that accusers are the ones who have to back up their accusations?

        The DNA found of Rudy was not from his blood. However his knife hand fingers were cut which tends to happen when the perp’s hand slides forward from the handle over the blade when the knife meets resistance, especially when lubricated by blood spatter. Like OJ’s were.

        Rudy disrobed and sexually assaulted Meredith after he mortally wounded her. Her blood soaked jacket was on during the knife attack. There is aspirated blood on her bra and her breasts because of blood spatter during the disrobing. There is blood on the waistband where her pants were pulled down. Rudy’s bloody palm print is on the pillow he then positioned Meredith with. This is covered in:

        The luminol detected blobs in Raffaele’s apartment were not from blood. It is straightforward for a crime lab to demonstrate that they were blood if they were, but Stefanoni made no such claims.

        Regarding luminol detected prints at the cottage though, Stefanoni perjured herself when she claimed not to have done tmb blood tests when she actually had (negative). She either never did confirmatory blood tests or doesn’t want to share the results.

        • Nasim says:

          You didn’t answer my question: Is it possible after a bloody multiple-assailant stabbing attack to find only one of the attackers’ DNA and/or prints?

          How do you know the DNA from Rudy was not blood? The relative amount of his DNA in the mixed trace on the purse is highly suggestive that it is his blood. Rudy had a cut on his right hand consistent with being accidentally slashed by another assailant during the attack. The theory that his hand slid forward over the blade is dubious at best. OJ is right handed and the cuts were on his left hand. This theory does not explain OJ’s cuts.

          Necrophilia is extraordinarily rare and those who commit it ALWAYS have a long history of sexual deviance. Witnesses said Rudy was terrified of blood. No evidence had emerged that he harbored any violent sexual fantasies (the same cannot be said for the other two).

          We don’t know much about the luminol hits in Raffaele’s apartment. The fact that the prosecution chose not to highlight this aspect of the case in no way convinces me that they are not significant.

          • Andrea Jonasson says:

            Nasim, you are seriously bad at estimating probabilities. Either that, or you are just kidding and you don’t actually believe what you are saying.

            You are using faint possibilities to justify your seeming 100% certainty that Raffaele and Amanda were the murderers while Rudy was only mildly or indirectly culpable.

            The evidence Rudy left at the scene paints him as a murderer beyond a reasonable doubt.

            The lack of evidence left by Amanda and Raffaele makes them unlikely murderers. At the very least this lack of evidence should arouse some degree of doubt in you. To my mind, it demonstrates a lack of involvement beyond a reasonable doubt.

            Why is it so important to you to hang on to your belief in Amanda and Raffaele’s guilt? The evidence just is not there.

          • HH says:

            Nasim: No, it is not possible after a bloody multiple-assailant stabbing attack to find only one of the attackers’ DNA and/or prints.

            It would take a miracle for two people to clean up every shred of themselves and then clean up all evidence of a cleanup while leaving behind a bloody crime scene and the dna of one participant.

            Can you clean up all evidence of your own DNA and leave behind selective traces? Explain to me how you would do this. If you can’t do it, how do you expect Amanda to?

            Someone needs to do a documentary about this complete with a test experiment. Two guilters can reenact the murder and then they can try to eliminate all traces of themselves and leave the traces of guilter number 3 and the victim’s blood and dna behind.

            After they attempt to do this, forensic crews can go over the mock crime scene with a fine toothed comb and demonstrate to the world how successful they were.

            I guarantee that they will NOT be successful.

          • HH says:

            As for the theory that Rudy’s hand slid over the blade while he was committing the murder being dubious, look up other stabbing murders. It’s incredibly common.

            Look up Jodi Arias. Or I suppose you believe that she grappled with Travis’s ninja attackers as well. (Oh wait, she changed her story again, she killed in self-defense.)

          • Nasim says:

            HH – The hand-slip theory is no more certain in the Arias case than it is in this case. Arias is ambidextrous. The knife was never found. In this case the IIP posits that the real murder weapon was a stiletto knife. Those knives have bolsters to prevent exactly what you suggest happened.

      • Tom Mininger says:

        I forgot to add that in addition to Guede’s bloody palm print on the pillow, there is also semen stain on it that the authorities refuse to analyze. In a rape/murder case.

        • Nasim says:

          Authorities including Hellmann, I might add. Of course we evidence junkies want to see everything tested. I certainly do. But the courts decided that the probative value of this evidence did not meet the legal threshold and if you mentally play out the possible outcomes of testing you can see why.

          • Rob H says:

            Astonishing! It seems likely the semen stain was tested in fact, but the results hidden. I don’t suppose that evidence of Guede masturbating over Ms Kercher’s corpse would have been of particular help to the prosecution’s attempt to implicate Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito in the crime given the absence of physical evidence against them nor would it have accrued much personal integrity to Mignini’s depiction of “Poor Rudy”. In Britain and the US, it would have been tested and the results admitted into evidence.

          • HH says:

            That’s all a bunch of crap. By the same logic, you could argue that the vaginal swab they did of Meredith was an unnecessary invasion of her privacy since she was sexually active.

            IMO, they tested the stain. The results just didn’t serve their purposes. It either belonged to Rudy, or he did have an accomplice. One they didn’t want to go through the trouble of tracking down.

          • HH says:

            If you think about it, after the shoes were proven to be Rudy’s and not Raffaele’s, the police were so desperate to tie Raffaele to the crime that they went back over a month later to retrieve a bra clasp that had moved locations. You don’t think they tested the semen stain in the hopes that it was Raffaele’s?

          • Nasim says:

            Unlikely. Stefanoni would have cut a piece from the pillowcase if she had tested it. I must admit I had a good laugh yesterday when I read the translation of Vinci’s powerpoint on this issue. Did he say the microejaculations were 5-4-3-1-2 or 2-3-1-4-5? I can’t recall. 😉

      • Rob H says:

        As far as your first sentence is concerned, it is incumbent on you to provide case histories, “nasim”. Every time you have been asked to supply a link to evidence you refer to or that you imply exists, you either cannot provide a source or you provide a dead link or you provide a a link to an abstract whereas the evidence you claim exists is contained, you insist, in the main body of the text.

        But Locard’s exchange principle will apply.


        It is true there are prolific “shedders” and others who are not as prolific. But Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito are demonstrably “shedders”.

        You have used two basic arguments on this blog in relation to the evidence in the murder room. Your first says that Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito committed the murder and left no DNA OR any other physical evidence (apart from the clasp). Your second says they cleaned it up. Which one do you want to settle on?

        According to you Mr Sollecito left his DNA by touching the bra clasp during the attack on Ms Kercher. Yet his DNA was not found anywhere else. Can you suggest any plausible argument as to how it was possible to do this without touching any of the fabric attached to the clasp or the rest of the bra? Can you suggest any plausible argument as to how this simple touch shedding could occur on just this one item yet on no other item or items in the murder room? Fabric items, which by their very nature are rough and textured such as pillow cases, sheets and towels will act as exceptional repositories of DNA and blood evidence compared to smooth surfaces and quite impossible to clean in situ. No DNA belonging to Ms Knox or Mr Sollecito was found on any of them. Yet for Guede it was.

        Guede is effectively a control sample for an experiment to decide whether or not the absence of the other defendant’s samples are exculpatory. He provides the proof that it is. According to you Ms Knox did the killing; Guede is barely an accessory.

        But you also say that Guede left samples only because he was bleeding. Yet you claim that Ms Knox was bleeding too.

        You will not find one accredited forensic scientist or crime scene investigator who would conclude from the evidence of the attack in the murder room that it is remotely possible for Ms Knox to have committed the murder without leaving evidence of herself behind and without taking evidence with her. That is Locard.

        Not even the colpevolisti hero, David Balding believes it is possible.

        • Nasim says:

          What exactly does David Balding believe is impossible?

          • Rob H says:

            To be clear and to avoid hyperbole, he does not believe that the lack of physical evidence in the murder room against her provides support for the prosecution’s contention that Ms Knox committed the murder – speaking as a layman, of course because, as he points out Professor Balding’s expertise is performing calculations on profiling results. He is not a laboratory based forensic scientist; he is, in fact, entirely computer based.

            Since his expertise does not extend this far, perhaps it is not that significant. But, Professor Balding is the only forensic scientist that the colpevolisti have been able to call on in apparent support of their position. But they claim too much. All he has really said professionally is that there is strong evidence from his calculations (he devised the programme), that Mr Sollecito’s profile is on the bra clasp. He claims no more than that.

            As I have stated, you will not find an accredited forensic scientist outside this case (I should add then perhaps, with relevant professional expertise) who will agree that it is possible for Ms Knox to have committed the murder but to have left no evidence behind and to have taken no evidence with her.

            In six and a half years there has been none.

          • Nasim says:

            Is there an accredited forensic scientist who says it is NOT possible for Ms Knox to have committed the murder but to have left no (found) evidence behind and to have taken no (found) evidence with her?

      • Glenn Thigpen says:

        @nasim It all depends on the type of involvement what kind of forensic evidence a peron will leave, what type of clothing is worn, etc. The point I have been making is that the independent forensic experts that have weighed in on the case have averred that any participants in the crime would have left similar types of traces in that murder room. There is no way that anyone else could have been involved in that murder without stepping in Meredith’s blood and without getting blood on themselves. There is no evidence of anyone in that room that night but the victim and Rudy.


      • Sarah H says:

        Yes, I dispute that, strongly.

        Please show me a single case in the US, Italy, or the UK — in all of Europe, for that matter — where a murder took place in a small room, a room smeared with blood on the walls and floor, where a fatal stabbing was carried out by at least three murderers — one of whom left DNA inside and outside the victim’s body, and fingerprints or palm prints, and shoe prints; and another left not a trace of physical presence on the scene — no DNA, fingerprints, shoe prints, hair, or fiber in the room or on the victim’s body — and acquired no trace of the victim on his or her own body.

        • Nasim says:

          It’s a common tactic to insist that any other case match all elements of this one in order to be considered comparable. The murder of Emily Fisher is a well-known case that matches the essential element: a very bloody crime scene, yet DNA and shoeprints of only one of the assailants (the one who had a cut on his hand).

      • William Benjamin says:

        I dispute the prosecutor driven and then court approved assertion that Knox and Sollecito cleaned their DNA from the murder scene with bleach. It implies something “impossible”. Do you know of any violent crimes involving multiple assailants in which the perpetrators did this impossible thing? Then also never left any physical evidence of the bleach? And didn’t leave any smear marks circular or otherwise to indicate a cleaning?

        An analysis of this point proves that the initial prosecutor’s investigation and court approvals there-of were either based on bald face lies and therefore overt corruption or they all were too dense or stupid to be qualified to conduct a murder trial. You choose. Too corrupt or too stupid? (hint… too stupid)

      • Andrea Jonasson says:

        If you are truly interested in understanding what happened to Meredith, follow where the evidence leads instead of grasping at slim possibilities to prop up your persecution rationale.

        Finding plentiful evidence of Guede on, in, and around Meredith and on her belongings and in her blood while finding no reliable evidence of Amanda and Raffaele makes the “Rudy Guede as lone burglar/killer” scenario more likely than the “Knox, Sollecito and Guede as group murderers who didn’t really know each other” scenario.

        “Faintly possible” is not the same as “beyond a reasonable doubt”.

      • hh says:

        LOL, conventional oral sex? You believe that actually occurred?

        • Nasim says:

          Not particularly, but I do find it interesting that Rudy was adamant that it was impossible for the police to find his sperm at the crime scene since it was not yet public knowledge that they had only found DNA inside the victim, not sperm.

      • hh says:

        Oops I meant to type consensual, not conventional.

  18. Richard says:

    Who in the world are some of thes guilter commentors? They seem to all over this blog. I actually am starting to think they are one of us who know Amanda and Raffaele are innocent. One of the tricks in a debate is to take the opposite side of the one you really believe and then promote it so badly and so nonsensical that you are totally clobbered every time you say anything. In any event the case is going to collapse when Nencini gives his explanations which are due anytime now. Of course if you don’t need evidence, a motive, a scenario that makes sense and you are free to use interrogation with intimidation you can convict anyone of anything. Pakistan indicted a 9 month old boy for attempted murder and that was in accordance wth their laws. They also had all the evidence for conviction they needed. I think the Judge on the Court of Cassation thinks he is another Vladimere Putin who only has to declare someone guilty and they are convicted. Italy can do whatever they want no matter how much it insults the rest of the western world but that conviction will mean nothing outside the borders of Italy. Absolute power corrupts absolutely and sometimes judges anywhere can get so taken with themselves that can’t see their own insanity.

    • William Benjamin says:

      This is a subject I have struggled with from nearly the beginnings of my involvement in this. There is no doubt that there is an amount of “theater” coagulated around the persecution of Knox And Sollecito. Do not blame the accused for it though. It is just too easy for a “hater” to do the same as what you suggest a supporter would. I am saying a hater could pretend to be a supporter pretending to be a hater. You start dealing with the double under over triple-cross scenario and in the end it just drives you crazy.

      The name up above this comment is my own. It was my fathers name and my grandfathers name and it has been in the Seattle phone book with the same phone number and address since 1984. And the owner of that name says Amanda and Raffeale didn’t do it. Do you understand that?

      • William Benjamin says:

        Sorry Richard. That last sentence of mine came out aggressive and that just not what was in my mind when I wrote that. It is obvious that we are on the same side.

  19. Kelly conig says:

    Hello Miss, I was just wondering, what if the current judge does not present the required report in the 90 day requirement? This timeline would only give him about 2 more weeks. Thank you, congrates on graduating, and now you must continue at getting your Phd…honestly, you would make a great prof. Peace.

    • Andrea Jonasson says:

      The 90 day time limit for motivations reports is not universally respected in Italy. Sabrina Misseri was sentenced to life imprisonment on April 20, 2013 for the murder of her cousin Sara Scazzi. Her sentencing report was released nearly a year later on March 11, 2014.

      La Stampa article

      This is another Italian jurisprudence head-scratcher. Evidence? We don’t need no stinkin’ evidence!

      There aren’t many articles in English a out the case, but it is being followed at Injustice Anywhere.

      Agent 86 and the Murder

  20. Hide Baert says:

    Dear Amanda,

    I share the same sentiments as Mike Wiesner (Smith) and Joe Kokomo: I am looking forward to your graduation too.
    Again, this is just my view.
    I can’t gaze into a crystal ball. However, I think there will be enough sensible persons who are happy to hire you on the basis of your merit and achievements in your studies and your writing.
    In addition, that additional quarter might give you space and time to sharpen your skills.

    As for the pesky math exam: We, bloggers, might be able to assist you in one way or another.

    Alternately, how about making a small creative project part of your grade: i.e. a translation from the work of a Italian math or physics wizard (Leonardi Da Vinci; Gallileo; Torricelli) or another math wiz (Raffaele Sollecito and other modern talented young mathematicians).
    Wish you the very best, Hilde

    PS Greetings to your math professor.
    It is not your or his/her fault. No blame on anybody.

  21. Hide Baert says:

    Hi Amanda,

    The addition of a pesky math class to the most challenging writing classes makes the perfect elixir for you, at this time.
    Bless you and those professors !
    This is just my view.

    Looking forward to seeing more pictures.

    Best wishes, Hilde

    PS ‘Life is too important to be taken seriously!’ Oscar Wilde

  22. Somebody says:

    Amanda, can you please tell why did you use Raffaele’s pocket knife, and for what purpose? You could clear my suspicion if you can give an explanation? I’m just wondering where did you use it during those 7 days you knew Raffaele? Your dna was found on it (this is not the kitchen knife=murder weapon, but a pocket knife): “Rep. 33A/B/C/D were four samples taken from a black-handled folding knife. It tested negative for blood, but, in one sample, the DNA profile matched a mix of Knox and Sollecito. “

    • Amanda says:


      Raffaele had showed me his few pocket knives before, and had allowed me to hold them.

      This is irrelevant discussion, however, because Raffaele’s pocket knives were shown very early on to have nothing to do with the murder: no blood or DNA from Meredith, and they were double-edged pocket knives, whereas the knife that killed Meredith was single-edged, according to the autopsy report.


      • Willis Coleman says:

        Part of the reason Raffaele is facing such a long prison sentence is that he has such a doggone poor memory. Here is what he said on ask.fm: Q-“Have you ever seen Amanda handle a pocket knife?” A-“No.” So the fact that he did allow you to handle his knives is going to raise a few eyebrows, regardless of the fact that the knife in question doesn’t appear to have been used in the attack.

        • Amanda says:

          Raffaele’s pocket knives and whether or not I ever touched them is irrelevant. They weren’t used to commit Meredith’s murder.

          As for Raffaele’s and my poor memories, we’ve been picked apart over irrelevant information for years now, under circumstances of incredible shock, pressure and stress. Putting so much emphasis on what we can or can’t remember accurately is not finding the truth of what happened to Meredith. What we can know for sure about what happened to her is there in the room where she was murdered. There is the only objective evidence. Subjective interpretation of irrelevant information and circumstances do nothing for the sake of truth and justice.

          • PK777 says:

            Your ‘poor memories’ are relevant about details other than that of the actual murder – if they are used as a smokescreen to cover involvement – such as being a CATALYST for the terrible event.

          • PK777 says:

            Your email home 2 days after the murder showed very detailed recall :

            “i woke up
            around 1030 and after grabbing my few things i left raffael’s
            appartment and walked the five minute walk back to my house to once
            again take a shower and grab a chane of clothes. i also needed to grab
            a mop because after dinner raffael had spilled a lot of water on the
            floor of his kitchen by accident and didnt have a mop to clean it up.
            so i arrived home and the first abnormal thing i noticed was the door
            was wide open. here’s the thingabout the door to our house: its
            broken, in such a way that you have to use the keys to keep it closed.
            if we dont have the door locked, it is really easy for the wond to
            blow the door open, and so, my roommates and i always have the door
            locked unless we are running really quickley to bring the garbage out
            or to get something from the neighbors who live below us.” etc

          • Andrea Jonasson says:

            @PK777 – Your ‘poor memories’ are relevant about details other than that of the actual murder – if they are used as a smokescreen to cover involvement – such as being a CATALYST for the terrible event.

            But what if they aren’t a smokescreen? What if Amanda and Raffaele really are just absent-minded? What objective method would you use to figure out what is a smokescreen and what is absent-mindedness? Have you got a mind-reading machine?

        • Andrea Jonasson says:

          Willis Coleman! Are you the same person who just excused Ms. Stefanoni for telling untruths on the stand because you think she got mixed up and forgot which TMB tests she did and didn’t do? How about cutting Raffaele the same amount of slack?

          • Mark Saha says:

            Each time Ms. Stefanoni was caught in a perjury she shrugged and said, “I forgot.”

          • Willis Coleman says:

            Raffaele’s memory problems are absurd. He claims that he was emailing his professors in the middle of the night. When it was pointed out that no professors reported receiving emails from him, he said they must have deleted them. When it was pointed out that there was no internet activity in the middle of the night, he said that the emails must still be in his drafts folder. When it was pointed out that there was no mention of a drafts folder in his computer expert’s testimony, he resorted back to saying data from his hard drive was lost by police, which is largely untrue and simply not a plausible explanation for emails vanishing without a trace. Supporters then jumped in, as they always do, to try to bail him out, saying that he is once again confused.

          • Andrea Jonasson says:

            @willis coleman you missed the point. You allow Patrizia to be confused and forgetful rather than fibbing. Why should Raffaele be expected to perform better?

        • Doug Moodie says:

          I tried to verify the ask fm quote but had no luck. Is it still on line? Can you link to it? Thanks. Also, Sollecito’s memory is not necessarily faulty with this answer. Ask fm seems to be a very informal format and to me the question ‘Have you ever seen Amanda handle a pocket knife?” would , if I were Sollecito, equate to “Have I seen Amanda in possession of her own pocket knife” or something of that sort, not, “Did I show Amanda one of my pocket knives and did she have that knife in her hand”. That latter question seems pretty minor, and of course he is just answering off the cuff, not for testimony or anything. And, he may well have forgotten. It’s not a big deal ( in addition to being wholly irrelevant as already pointed out).

          • Willis Coleman says:


            This is corroborated by Raffaele’s friends and family who testified he never let anyone touch his knives because it made him anxious (see for example testimony of Saverio Binetti).

        • Glenn Thigpen says:

          It would really be helpful for all concerned if those who are putting Amanda’s and Rafaele’s every comment, action, and facial expression to be able to explain (rationally) the actual relevance of the areas they are putting under the microscope, while giving a free pass to the egregious errors made by the investigaators, judges, and prosecutors in this case. Also, explain rationally why everyone who keeps trumpeting that they think Amanda and Raffaele are guilty how they could have participated in the act without leaving the same type and amounts of evidence that Rudy Guede left.

          Of course they won’t, because they can’t and will continue to “strain at a gnat while swallowing a camel”.


          • Somebody says:

            Glenn. Police searched dna from Amanda’s room too. Guess what? Not much of her dna was found there either. This is normal, and police CSI knows it, judges know it, jury members know it. You don’t, because you are not educated enough about CSI. This also destroys Amanda’s defense that she keeps repeating: there’s no dna of me in Meredith’s room, so I can’t have done it. But there’s not much her dna either in her own room. Why? It’s normal, who knows why. But her defense is invalid also. Her dna was not in those few samples that was taken from Meredith’s room, but was it there elsewhere, nobody can tell, if we say the truth. This is from “themurderof meredithkercher”web page: other dna evidence (Evidence from Amanda’s room):
            “Rep.109/A/B/C/D/E were 5 samples taken from a pair of “Sketchers” shoes. All were negative for blood and just one of the 5 had a DNA profile: it was a match for Knox.
            Rep.110/A/B/C were 3 samples from a multicolour handbag. They were negative for blood but all had testable DNA profiles which matched Knox.[20]
            Overall, no evidence arose from these tests. The only point of note is how little DNA is left by a person in their bedroom and on their personal effects”

          • Rob H says:

            What a lot of biased nonsense from “somebody”. You need evidence to convict. When you don’t have the evidence you cannot say “We didn’t find it but we presume it’s there somewhere, so let’s proceed on that basis”, which is basically your argument. It’s absurd.

            You refer to “those few samples” taken from Ms Kercher’s room. There were around 400 samples taken from her room – Ms Knox was not present in any of them.

            The primary crime scene was Ms Kercher’s room. So fond of it were the Italians they came back for a second try.

            You think it’s plausible that Ms Knox could have murdered Ms Kercher in the company of two other assailants in a 12 x 11 room with prolific exsanguination, a life or death struggle and a vicious knife attack administered by her and leave NO DNA, no fingerprints, footprints, palm prints, hair, saliva AND not take any evidence from the crime scene away with her on her person and her clothes and deposit it at Mr Sollecito’s apartment? It is inconceivable. It would require magic. You will not find one accredited forensic scientist or crime scene investigator outside of this case who would support such a notion.

            You are just not educated enough about CSI.

            Ms Knox’s DNA was found where it should have been found. You don’t think much of it was found outside the murder room and that this is evidence that the absence of it in the murder room is insignificant? Well even the Italian investigators realised that finding her DNA in her own bedroom was not going to help the case against her. Their instructions were not “Find me as many samples of Amanda Knox’s DNA anywhere in HER bedroom”. If they had done that, there would of course be numerous samples.

            You think the DNA evidence in this case “destroys’ Ms Knox’s defence?

            Yet there is no DNA evidence against Ms Knox that is worth calling evidence.

            You are astonishingly ill informed -probably because your reading diet is so lacking in nutrition.

          • Graceland says:

            “Somebody” – your comments here about DNA are insane. But then that’s not surprising given the garbage-ridden website from which you regurgitate this “information”. If the police didn’t find much of Amanda’s DNA in her own bedroom then they must not have been looking too hard for it.

          • Max Green says:

            Somebody, “Not much of her dna was found there either. This is normal,” if you don’t search much.

            This case is so easy that people don’t want to believe it. But here’s a hint for you guys just look it all up on the site “murderof meredithkercher” where everything is explained for you.

            Why waste your time instead of enjoying some nice pictures here. 🙂

          • Somebody says:

            It is possible to commit murder without leaving- OR police catching- any dna on victim, or NEAR victim. I could immediately think many ways how to do that.
            1. Police never searches the whole crime scene from every inch on the floor to the walls and ceiling. It would be impossible. Lots of dna evidence or finger prints or fibers are missed all the time in any police investigation. A&R knows this, yet they keep repeating contrary to the dummies who believe their lies and who don’t know this.
            2. Any university lever educated person is clever enough to use something to hide their dna/fingerprints/ shoeprints. They are no dummies, like others. This is what csi and other crime tv-programs have caused. Only stupid would be careless and leave it behind. We already have a photo of Raffaele dressed as a murderer, so he was prepared and that photo gives us an idea how they did it.
            3. A criminal could use swimming mask to cover their hair, just like Guede said to police they did use. Then they could use cleaning gloves to hide their finger prins, and these were found in A’s house. They could use any plastic bags to cover their shoes. And lastly- it’s easy to throw away their bloody clothes or burn them, then just change clothes after taken 2 showers-just like Amanda did to wash blood off. Case closed. Jury and judges has reached a verdict, end of story.

          • Max Green says:

            Somebody, thank you for finally telling to all those stupid people that the 2 went in to a spontaneous visit to the house, gift-wrapped in toilet paper, wearing swimming masks and cleaning gloves on their hands and walking on plastic bags.
            That’s what we do every time they let us out for a day from the hospital, right?

        • Rob H says:

          You are suggesting that Mr Sollecito has been found guilty of murder on the basis that he has a poor memory, “willis” – really? So, if he had a good memory, he would have been found innocent?

          That he didn’t have 100 per cent recall in the face of a microscopic hour by hour interrogation of his activities is suspicious to you, yet generously you describe Stefanoni’s lack of rigour with her evidence in court as the product of a faulty memory (rather than lying) and tell us we should not be suspicious of that even when she had comprehensive documentation to refer to as a memory aide?

          What also, do you make of the memory problems apparent in the testimony of others – Romanelli, Purton, for example?

          The statements of people you know to be innocent you treat differently to the statements of those you believe are guilty.

          If you were able to treat the statements both inside and outside court of all the witnesses and defendants in this case with fairness and equanimity and judged everyone’s utterances to the same standard, you would come much closer to the truth than your non-rational and emotional bias has led you thus far.

          What possible relevance is Mr Sollecito’s knife collection or whether or not he let Ms Knox handle an item in his collection, to the murder of Ms Kercher. What if he were a collector of spoons that were not used in the murder instead of knives? Would you be so interested?

          If I were to question you on multiple occasions about what you were doing two days ago, for the whole of that day, I have no doubt that different details would emerge over the course of your “interrogation”. And some of the detail that you would give me would contradict details you previously gave. This is normal.

          It is the job of an investigator to discover relevant evidence and in so doing to apply critical thinking and clear judgment, not to expose the frailty of the human condition in one or two individuals and claim that this frailty is unique to them when in fact it is common to everyone.

          • Willis Coleman says:

            I think you’re just being argumentative here. Raffaele is a singularly bad liar. He insults people’s intelligence. If he had told the truth, whatever it is, he would have done less time than he will now.

          • Rob H says:

            “willis” – your comments about Mr Sollecito – “bad liar”, “insults people’s intelligence” are just evidence absent, emotional, subjective bias.

            You do once again what I have demonstrated you always do – judge people by different standards based on your feelings towards them.

            I don’t suppose you will ever be able to understand this case.

            But let’s not be too hard on you; Massei and Nencini didn’t understand it either.

            From what we understand of Nencini so far, he seems to believe that the “opportunity” of a free evening provided to Ms Knox at 8.18pm when Lumumba cancelled her shift was a realistic opportunity to commit murder, apparently because that’s just a predictable thing that people do in the evening when they don’t have any obligations – they go off and kill their flatmates.

            We await Nencini’s voluminous sophistry with interest. I wonder if he actually realises that he is about to destroy his own reputation – that there is nothing he can write which will save it.

          • Willis Coleman says:

            Nencini saying that if Amanda had gone to work Meredith would still be alive is quite different than saying that having the night off was the motive. I hope for the best from Nencini but it’s going to be hard to match the detailed understanding of Massei and Hellmann, given that he didn’t have a year to study the case like they did.

          • Andrea Jonasson says:

            @Willis Coleman, you say Nencini saying that if Amanda had gone to work Meredith would still be alive is quite different than saying that having the night off was the motive.

            You forgot the “probably” in your quote:

            “If Amanda had gone to work, probably we wouldn’t be here.” (Amanda Knox’s judge says he suffered over guilty verdict by the Associated Press)

            Seriously. He said “probably”. Like he wasn’t quite convinced, but he pronounced them guilty anyway.

          • Andrea Jonasson says:

            @Willis Coleman re: I hope for the best from Nencini but it’s going to be hard to match the detailed understanding of Massei and Hellmann, given that he didn’t have a year to study the case like they did.

            It is unfortunate that those who know the least about the case will be making the final judgments: Nencini & Cassation.

            The one who knew the most is Hellmann, who knew what Massei knew, plus Conti-Vecchiotti. He thought they didn’t do it. 🙂

          • Rob H says:

            Well that’s just you all over, isn’t it “willis” – perverting the truth at every stage. Nencini stated: “At the moment I can say that until 8:15 that evening the young people had different plans, then the commitments were skipped and this created the opportunity. If Amanda had gone to work, we probably would not be here.” He did not say, as you state: “if Amanda had gone to work Meredith would still be alive”.

            If you suffer from some cognitive impairment, please let us know and we’ll make the appropriate allowances.

            Otherwise, be a good chap and don’t misrepresent what people have said.

            Don’t you feel your case is strong enough without doing it?

        • Max Green says:

          Willis, in the real world it is perfectly plausible to save draft emails in the draft folder and they are obviously gone when the storage disk is competely destroyed.
          I thoroughly read at least 3 reports of recovery attempts performed by different court-appointed professional data recovery companies on the disks and my expertise in this area allows me to establish the fact that these disks were maliciously destroyed while in police custody. Obviously it wasn’t Raffaele who had something to hide here.
          This case is pretty easy to understand unless you close your eyes whenever any significant fact comes up.

          • Nasim says:

            Just one problem Max – Raffaele’s MacBook was cloned BEFORE it was damaged.

          • jamesrae says:

            What did go on with the 3 destroyed computers and how difficult is it to accomplish what they did. I gather you would have to know exactly what you are doing. I don’t know much about this aspect of their negligence or
            intentional criminality.

          • Graceland says:

            Who cloned it? And when?

          • Andrea Jonasson says:

            @Nasim – His MacBook wasn’t his only computer, was it? Did he not have a desktop? What happened to that?

      • Scott says:

        Hi Amanda: Good to hear you are about to graduate. Were there any “positive experiences” you gained while in prison that you see as serving you well in the future years ahead? – Sincerely, Scott

    • Rob H says:

      Ms Knox’s DNA was found in all of the places you would expect an innocent person’s DNA to be found and, in connection with Ms Kercher’s murder, in none of the places you would expect a guilty person’s DNA to be found.

    • Som Nathan says:

      Why is no one asking or barred from questions of Rudy Guede. For example, 1. What did he do with the knife he always carried prior to killing Meredith, or where exactly did he got rid of the murder weapon, when he fled to Germany.

      Look folks, Rudy Guede is the clear winner here. He has answers to all the questions as to how he killed that girl, ran away, ran away, and them showed remorse to the victims family. Mignini and Massie were impressed. What a wonderful boy, first commits the worst sin and then repents. Oh! Yeah, he is Perugian Darling. He knows the answers and much more. Only if they let him speak. I am quite sure he will squawk one day.

  23. Kokomo Joe says:

    Beautiful pictures and they are further evidence that Amanda has great strength of character, hopefully enough to get through all the tribulations still ahead.

    I’d like to see this particular blog concentrate on giving Amanda the encouragement she needs to stay strong and allow her creativity to continue to develop and blossom (no pun intended) as there are plenty of other places to rehash the details of the case.

    Does anyone know if Amanda is still on track to graduate from the University of Washington next month?

    • Amanda says:

      Kokomo Joe,

      Thank you for your encouragement. I will be graduating over the summer, as it turns out I have one pesky math-related class to take before I graduate. This is my last full quarter at the UW though, and I am taking the most challenging writing classes yet, so that’s exciting!

      My best to you,

      • Amanda, I am very sad to hear you will not walk on June 14th. We all know you never use that math anyway. 🙂

        However, congratulations on your so unjustly delayed graduation!

      • Kokomo Joe says:

        I hope you are planning to post the announcement as the date gets close, and also lots of pictures of your graduation! It will be an event worth celebrating!

      • Thor Klamet says:

        Can’t let a math class get in the way! I do online math tutoring. My website is vermontphysicsguy.com. — Thor (aka Matt)

  24. Elias says:

    Hey Everybody! Happy Easter…or

    Happy season of rebirth, renewal, redefining yourself, reinventing yourself, (psychological or or identity) resurrection!

    We also lost a very brave and intelligent man; here is the obituary of Ruben “Hurricane” Carter: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/21/sports/rubin-hurricane-carter-fearsome-boxer-dies-at-76.html?hp&_r=0

    I think all and all, Amanda, it is an inspiring read and somewhat of a model for how to survive and then embrace the experience and thrive; helping others and being your original self…

    Conscious appreciation to all supporters of Amanda and Rafaelle,


  25. Rob H says:

    “I lived in hell for the first 49 years, and have been in heaven for the past 28 years. To live in a world where truth matters and justice, however late, really happens, that world would be heaven enough for us all.”

    Rubin “Hurricane” Carter

    Wrongly convicted of murder and twice wrongly imprisoned for a total of 19 years. He campaigned for the rights of the wrongfully convicted. Mr Carter died today aged 76.

    • Scott says:

      Bob Dylan did a tribute song for Hurricane Carter in the 1980’s I think. I hope he’s in a much better place now that he has left this ironic planet.

  26. Andrea Jonasson says:

    Rubin “Hurricane” Carter, the former professional boxer who became an advocate for the wrongly convicted after spending 19 years in prison for a triple murder he didn’t commit, died Sunday in Toronto. He was 76.

    With this new evidence, Carter’s legal team launched a number of appeals. Although initially unsuccessful, a federal judge in 1985 finally ruled that the convictions of Carter and Artis were based “upon an appeal to racism rather than reason and concealment rather than disclosure.”


  27. Tom Mininger says:

    I think it’s important to examine the history of the kitchen knife “osmotically”. Police chose one and only one knife from Raffaele’s kitchen drawer to be the “murder weapon” when they hadn’t even collected any knives from the murder cottage.

    It was several inches longer than the knife which left the bloody imprint on the bedsheet. and is too big to have made the stab wounds. The bedsheet imprint knife is compatible with all the stab wounds. The fatal carving wound,matches the imprint knife being driven in 3 times to the hilt. The large kitchen knife blade would have had to be driven in to just the length of the imprint knife blade 3 times. Yeah right.

    CSI Stefanoni performed the tmb blood test on the kitchen knife. This test is more sensitive than the test for touch DNA and blood is harder to clean off than touch DNA. No blood. Time to eliminate the knife. But wait, Stefanoni’s crime lab boss Biondi is consultant to the prosecution and they need something against Amanda.

    So Stefanoni performs the accepted PCR DNA analysis and finds nothing on the blade. Time to eliminate the knife. But wait. She proceeds to reject international forensic standards and equipment manufacturer guidelines. She cranks up the amplitude and enters the realm of low copy template (LCT). A realm neither she nor her lab is qualified to perform. BTW Low Copy Number (LCN) is when emerging international standards are applied to LCT. Stefanoni did LCT.

    She does this ultra-sensitive LCT analysis on the knife after this unqualified lab has already processed Meredith’s DNA on other items using PCR. It’s absurd. Eventually she claims she finds a victim’s “sample” on the knife. The test can never be reproduced.

    The courts allow Stefanoni to hide the data behind her DNA analysis for years until Judge Hellmann forces her to turn enough over for the Conti/Vecchiotti independent review to do its work and discredit her bogus results. To this day Stefanoni is allowed to avoid fully disclosing the electronic data files which allow forensic scientists around the world to verify each others DNA analysis.

    The Carabinieri (national police) lab verifies that a test has to be reproduced to be valid.

    Stefanoni lied about the initial size of her supposed blade sample and she initially lied that there was blood on the knife.

    The Italian supreme court announces contamination must be proven even without disclosure of the electronic data files, not to mention the defense has no part in the collection and handling of evidence. This is like the Church lecturing Galileo on the moons of Jupiter.

    So we’re left with Amanda’s DNA on the handle, vegetable starch on the blade, and a mountain of police crime lab fraud.

    That’s just the knife. Then there’s the bra-strap clasp farce.

    • Willis Coleman says:

      The bed sheet imprint cannot be matched to any knife in my opinion. It may not even be a knife.

      It is not possible to conclude whether TMB or PCR are more sensitive in a given situation. There are too many variables involved.

      Stefanoni did not “crank up” the equipment after finding nothing. She assumed the sample was LCN based on the “too low” quantification and used what is apparently her LCN protocol from the outset. Even today not everyone agrees on what makes a “qualified” LCN lab, so it is not true that she was unqualified. It is simply untrue that LCN results need to be repeated to be valid. LCN almost by definition is too small to repeat.

      Regarding the disclosure of raw data, defense lawyers always seek to have the lab release reams of data that they can present to the jury to confuse them. Police labs always resist these requests. I think the right balance was eventually found – Conti and Vecchiotti seemed satisfied. The Supreme Court rightly said that allegations of contamination have to be specific and plausible, not general charges of unprofessionalism.

      • Andrea Jonasson says:

        When the independent court-appointed scientists say that the evidence is bullshit, you should probably say to yourself, “Hey, maybe the evidence is bulllshit…” rather than making up excuses for why two people should be locked up for twenty-something years based on crap evidence.

        I don’t think you understand what is meant when scientists say a result ‘valid’. It’s not like when the motor license issuer says your driver’s license is valid so you can drive. A scientifically valid test result means that the result is likely to reliably provide the information you think you are getting. For example, a valid result on the knife would be one where you could be sure you were measuring biological material from the knife and not the background contamination in your lab or your machine. When the Caranibinieri expert says you need at least two tests to be valid, the meaning is that you need at least two tests to be pretty sure the results are NOT WRONG. When you want to lock two people up for twenty-something years, you need to be pretty sure that your results are NOT WRONG.

        And when the knife has tested negative for blood, and doesn’t fit the wounds – IT DOESN’T FIT THE WOUNDS WILLIS – you can be pretty sure that Ms. Stefanoni’s result from her made-up testing protocol IS WRONG.

        Ms. Stefanoni lied on the stand, Willis. More than once. She hid evidence from the defense. If her evidence is robust enough to lock two people up for twenty-something years, it should be robust enough to stand up to open scrutiny by the scientific community. No lying. No hiding. No excuses.

        • Willis Coleman says:

          When the independent court-appointed scientists make hyperbolic statements, you should probably say to yourself, “Hey, maybe they aren’t really unbiased…”

          Validity is important but rarely can it be established with certainty. Appropriate controls help. Quality assurance logs help. Ultimately it’s a judgment call for the court whether there is a plausible route to contamination for a particular piece of evidence. I would say no for the bra clasp and I haven’t made up my mind about the knife.

          In fact I don’t think it has been proven that the knife was a murder weapon, and I expect Judge Nencini will acknowledge that.

          I do not think Stefanoni lied on the stand. She handles hundreds of cases and it is not surprising that she got mixed up here and there.

          • Duke says:

            If the knife isn’t the murder weapon as the prosecution always claimed then there’s no evidence against Amanda and she certainly wasn’t carrying a big knife in her cloth bag which was the story that Massei concocted.

          • Bob Magnetti says:

            Willis Coleman said ” . . . Ultimately it’s a judgment call for the court whether there is a plausible route to contamination for a particular piece of evidence. I would say no for the bra clasp . . .”

            How can you say that the bra-clasp wasn’t contaminated when there is DNA on the clasp for 3 or more males with no fingerprint, footprint, shoe print evidence of said males in the bedroom? Your statement makes no sense; it defies logic . . .

          • Rob H says:

            Do you think Stefanoni got “mixed up here and there” just in this case, “willis’, or could it be that the “hundreds” of other cases she was involved in should be re-opened?

            The biggest case in Perugia’s history, a media firestorm raging outside the court and in the international press and Stefanoni mixed up her evidence – and you think we can rely on this woman’s professional skills? Really? Seriously?

            Witnesses who come to court must be rigorous with their evidence. And if the lead forensic scientist cannot remember whether or not she tested for blood, for example, then she shouldn’t be in her job.

            Or, of course, she was lying and not only should she not be in her job – she should be in prison.

          • Andrea Jonasson says:

            The question is how certain is certain enough to lock up two people for twenty-odd years?

            As you say, the prosecution has failed to prove knife as murder weapon. Given the whole history of the knife and its size and shape, they have even failed to prove that it is a probable murder weapon. It should not then figure in the thinking about guilt or innocence.

            In the case of the bra clasp, all you have to do is compare the crime scene photos on the first evidence collection day and the day of the bra clasp collection, then follow it up with the dirty-gloved move-it-around bra clasp collection video. The immediate reaction is “You’ve got to be f-in kidding me!” You don’t have to know which exact dust bunny was carrying the DNA when you know that Raffaele is not the only guy in the sample.

            If you watch the bra clasp collection video, then you can see with your own eyes that Ms. Stefanoni lied on the stand when she made her clean gloves claim. I don’t think that you can give her a free pass for being mixed up by denying having done TMB tests on the luminol footprints and pretending they were meaningful evidence against Amanda, when they were actually meaningless in the context of the murder. This falsehood, whether deliberate or accidental, was used to try to lock up two people for twenty-something years. It is not in any way excusable.

            Everybody is biased, Willis. It is part of being human. I think that being histrionic might be part of being Italian. The Italians who read here could advise on this question. 🙂

            Scientists use strict testing protocols and expose their work to the scientific community for peer review to control for bias. Could C-V be biased? Maybe. How can you check to see whether bias affected their work in this case? Check their methodology against established protocols. Read peer reviews of their work.

            There are plenty of forensic DNA specialists who have voiced opinions similar to C-V. You won’t find many professionals in the field attesting to the reliability of the work done by Ms. Stefanoni in this case.

          • Tom Mininger says:

            The bra-strap collection video Andrea refers to can be seen as the first video on this page:

            Note the spectacle made of collecting this item. Normally frame-ups are attempted discreetly. The cops are so arrogant they have no problem hamming it up.

      • Rob H says:

        We despair of “willis coleman”.

        It’s a matter of logic that if the knife is the murder weopan it would have once had Ms Kercher’s blood on it; if it was the murder weopan and did not have blood on it when it was retrieved (which it did not), then the blade must have been cleaned; if it was cleaned sufficiently to remove all traces of blood then there could be no trace of DNA; since (as “willis” and “nasim” contend) there is DNA, then the blade cannot have been cleaned to remove blood; since it was not cleaned to remove blood, there was never any blood on it and so it cannot be the murder weopan.

        The appearance of starch on the blade further supports the defence’s case.

        So, either there was never Ms Kercher’s DNA on the blade or alternatively, there is, (though this cannot be proved) but the DNA has nothing to do with the murder and is the result of contamination or innocent transfer.

        The Carabinieri’s own rules of evidence regarding the repeatability of DNA testing dictate that the knife should never have featured in the case. We should not even know of its existence.

        How, also, was it possible to drive the kitchen knife into Ms Kercher three times to EXACTLY the same depth and not to the hilt? Impossible.

        What does “willis” think the knife shaped blood imprint on the sheet is? (that would be the one of a size to match ALL of Ms Kercher’s wounds). An asparagus?

        Why does “willis” argue for the witholding of relevant evidence that would allow the scientific community to properly evaluate Stefanoni’s work and permit the defence to mount a proper case? How can the defence possibly meet Novelli’s reversal of the normal burden of proof when evidence is witheld from them? The principal of “equality of arms” at trial is one adjudged to be sacrosanct both in Italian law and European Human Rights legislation.

        Where is the ringing endorsement for “Dr” Stefanoni in the international scientific community?

        • Willis Coleman says:

          I think you present a false dichotomy. Either Meredith’s DNA was never on the blade or it was on the blade but the DNA has nothing to do with the murder and is the result of contamination, OR her DNA got there because it was in Raffaele’s apartment.

          • Amanda says:


            The DNA trace on the knife cannot be attributed to Meredith. It was LCN and the police did not have the technical capability to analyze it. It was wrong for them to say from the start that they could attribute it to anyone.


          • Rob H says:

            Their own rules of evidence dictate that the knife has nothing to do with the case.
            There is no safe attribution of DNA on the knife blade at all.

            Interestingly, it would not have surprised me in the least if somewhere in Mr Sollecito’s apartment, Ms Kercher’s DNA had shown up – from innocent transfer.

            As it happened, it did not.

          • Andrea Jonasson says:

            Good gravy! I agree with Willis Coleman.

            Of the three things listed, I vote number one as the most likely (background lab contamination that never touched the knife), number two as the second most likely (contamination when the knife was opened in the police station), and number three as the least likely, since they didn’t find a bunch of Meredith’s DNA at Raffaele’s.

            As Amanda says, when there is such a great degree of doubt, Ms. Stefanoni was wrong to give a certain attribution of DNA on the knife blade to Meredith.

          • DC says:

            Do you really think this knife was involved? This knife that wasn’t cleaned and had no blood on it.

          • Nasim says:

            Amanda, the fact that the lab found Meredith’s DNA is proof that they had they had the technical capability to do so. Your real argument I think is that they didn’t have adequate procedures in place to rule out contamination, but Stefanoni hadn’t tested any of Meredith’s DNA for a week, a period of time which Vecchiotti agreed was long enough to rule it out.

          • Amanda says:


            I’m arguing that Stefanoni interpreted the electropherogram when it was not possible to do so accurately, because they did not have the technical capability to analyze that trace of that scarcity. The reading was not interpretable, but she went ahead and interpreted an identification anyway.

            The kitchen knife has been proven not the murder weapon for more than this reason. It tested negative for blood. It doesn’t correspond with Meredith’s stab wounds. It doesn’t correspond with the imprint on the bed sheet. I never carried it around with me. Rudy Guede, not Raffaele or I, had cuts on his hands.


          • jamesrae says:

            My simple reading of this situation found that there was not enough DNA sample from the knife to do a second test. It was a one shot deal using a technique that was radical at that time, in that underrated facility. It seems preposterous to attempt such a thing when no 2nd test can be done to confirm it’s authenticity. I would think a gross disregard for established protocol.

          • Andrea Jonasson says:

            @Nasim re: Amanda, the fact that the lab found Meredith’s DNA is proof that they had they had the technical capability to do so.

            Circular reasoning is a classic logic error. C-V position is that the machine, the lab, and the operator were not equipped for this type of DNA analysis (among other things) so there cannot be a certain attribution of the DNA to MK.

            You are saying that since they found MK DNA, the lab, equipment and operator must be A-OK, therefore the attribution must be correct. Which means that the lab must be capable, which means the result must be correct, which means the lab must be capable…

      • Antony says:

        Willis Coleman: “Regarding the disclosure of raw data, defense lawyers always seek to have the lab release reams of data that they can present to the jury to confuse them. Police labs always resist these requests.

        Talk about presumption of guilt! In Willis’s version of “justice”, those making accusations have no duty to substantiate them, because the defendants’ case is assumed to be a trick.

        “I think the right balance was eventually found – Conti and Vecchiotti seemed satisfied.

        Stop right there. The reality is that when ordered by Judge Hellman to provide her data, Stefanoni eventually provided the graphic printout she used to claim a match with Raff’s DNA. Far from being “satisfied”, Conti and Vecchiotti stated that regardless of the missing data, Stefanoni’s conclusion could not be supported even by the printouts she produced, unverified as they were by anti-contamination records.

        “The Supreme Court rightly said that allegations of contamination have to be specific and plausible,

        The Supreme Court acted illegally in multiple ways. There is no such requirement. There is a requirement for the prosecution to show that contamination did not occur. Without the missing data, Stefanoni’s results have no validity.

        “… not general charges of unprofessionalism.”

        You mean like your inference that Lalli didn’t tie the bowel ligatures properly, based only on the false assertion about the stomach contents being in “an advanced state of digestion”?

      • Tom Mininger says:

        Pictures of the bloody imprint made by the murder weapon knife on the bedsheet are available for all to see at:

        Pictures are worth a thousand words and a good way to expose “Willis” disinformation.

        • Nasim says:

          I for one don’t think the IIP reconstruction is far-fetched, but there are certainly other possibilities. Someone pointed out that the stain is very homogeneous (there aren’t clumps of blood anywhere) and the edges aren’t too sharp. This suggests that whatever object made this stain was on top of the sheet and it soaked through, which in turn suggests the sheet was removed later.

          • Rob H says:

            You are just parroting Massei, “nasim”. You haven’t actually said anything at all – just that you think there are “other possibilities”. Do you think it’s a knife print or not? If not then what? I cannot imagine a British jury coming to the very firm conclusion that it is a knife imprint – an imprint of the murder weapon and with the additional evidence from Ms Kercher’s wounds rule out the possibility that Mr Sollecito’s kitchen knife was relevant to the case. But actually, the kitchen knife would never have made it into evidence in the first place.

          • Rob H says:

            Of course that should read, “I cannot imagine a British jury not coming to the very firm conclusion that it is a knife imprint”.

    • Som Nathan says:

      ….. and then there is this real killer who needs to be shown leniency for he knows something and allowed to be cross examined he might spill beans. So these Perugian smarties were instructed to dig up anything and everything howsoever unreal it may be to implicate and Amanda. Also, Massie in his motivation concluded that Amanda carried this huge kitchen knife for self defense prior to murder. Although he didn’t feel it was necessary to prove his point. He like Mignini, Giobbi and others felt that Amanda is guilty, so why prove it.
      Well, around Perugia they are the authority, they can say and do anything.
      Give maximum sentences to the innocents and work out deals to minimize punishments to the real rapists and murderers like “poor Rudy Guede”.

      Do these prosecutors have any self consciousness left in them, any decency, any humanity? Do they ever think that they have family or friends who may end up someday in a situation similar to Amanda and Raffaelle?

      May be I am too emotional here. They are born cruel and just doing their job.

    • Andrea Jonasson says:

      Anybody who still believes in the-kitchen-knife-as-murder-weapon has to really really want to believe.

    • Julie Jorgensen says:

      An excellent post Tom. You bring up many very compelling points that prove the knife evidence is completely bogus.

    • Thor Klamet says:

      Thanks Tom,

      Nice, clear post. I didn’t know the fatal wound had 3 depth measurements that were all the same. Sounds like that would make the large knife an impossibility to go with the other miracles assumed by the prosecution.

      Regarding the bra clasp: The independent report said Stefanoni claimed it was just Meredith and Raffaele on the clasp but Stefanoni’s own data showed clear, obvious, unequivocal evidence of contamination by multiple other individuals which Stefanoni ignored apparently because admitting the test came back “contaminated” would mean the bra clasp would be useless.

      There seem to be two people in this case who we can say are guilty of criminal activity based on incontrovertible evidence: Guede and Stefanoni.

    • Ian Morris says:

      Thomas has made a good point about the problems with the knife. Basic common sense says that if a knife is used to stab someone it should match the wounds. Raffaele’s knife did not match the wounds and hence could not have been used to stab Meredith. If the prosecution had a mountain of solid reliable evidence and a slam dunk case against Amanda and Raffaele, why did the prosecution have to resort to using a knife which did not match the wounds as evidence? When the police and prosecution present evidence, you expect them to present evidence which could have been used in a crime. If the case against Amanda and Raffaele, why was so solid why did the prosecution use a piece of evidence which could not have been used in Meredith’s murder?

      If the police and prosecution use evidence which can be not be used in a crime, this is a sign of desperation and a clear indication the police and a prosecution have a weak case and a lack of evidence. I will use an example to illustrate my point. The police arrest a suspect for knocking over a pedestrian when driving a car. The police and prosecution allege the suspect ran over the pedestrian in a car owned by the suspect. There is CCTV footage of when the pedestrian was run over. The car which ran over the suspect does not match the make or number plate of the vehicle owned by the suspect. The suspect’s car was purchased after the pedestrian was run over. At the time the pedestrian was run over the vehicle was the car dealer’s showroom and there is time stamped CCTV to prove this. The suspect’s car could not have been used to run over the pedestrian. Would people not be asking if the police and prosecution have such a strong case against the suspect why would they have to resort to using a car which could not have been used to run over the pedestrian as evidence. The same principle applies to Amanda and Raffaele. If the case against them was so strong, why were the prosecution using a knife which could not have been used to kill Meredith as evidence?

      It is important to bear in mind the prosecution had a year between the arrests of Amanda and Raffaele and the beginning of the first trial to prepare their case. Why is that with all the time available to prepare their case, a knife which did not match the wounds was the best evidence the prosecution could come up with?

      • Antony says:

        Ian Morris, the simple answer is that the police and prosecution confident that whatever they presented to the court would never be subject to scrutiny. The way the Supreme Court hearing and the latest trial have gone shows that their confidence was justified.

        This in itself is an astounding indictment of Italian justice. The question raised is just how many cases like Amanda and Raff’s have occurred in Italy, without ever coming to world attention.

  28. Sheri says:

    Keep posting photos and keep beautiful things on your mind, during hardest days , beautiful scenery or a great song is what keeps us going

  29. Daphne says:


    Amanda and Other Wrongfully Convicted People: Hi.
    Smiles like these make all our efforts worth a million bucks and much more!

    Almost everyday, for every crime that goes solved, there’s another surfacing that’s bound to be built on slander. If more people fought like all of you, the world would be freer of slime ball liars who peddle BS for money. So every country in the world should have an Innocence Project to fall back on.

    More and more cases of slander expose evil people who work behind the scenes everywhere, safely hidden, like roaches. But this won’t completely destroy my faith in humanity, no matter who bullies or rules or breaks the most laws. I really think the strongest people are those with the biggest hearts.

    Amanda, surely your recent win has swayed many more to accept the reality of the absence of evidence that landed you in prison and freed you. Your photos really show the same strength and peace that your smile does. Still rooting for you, no matter what!

    • Chris Frait says:

      Hi Daphe!
      I saw your post. Just wanted to come over and say “Hi!” It has been a while
      since I spotted you here and I hope things are going great for you these days. 🙂
      P.S. Sorry if the texts looks disjointed. I am visiting Las Vegas and typing from a mobile phone. 🙂

      • Daphne says:

        Hi, Chris! Thanks. I had to hit the books hard for my final exam, which I wrote almost 2 weeks ago. Hopefully, I passed?????
        I am also devising a letter for my premier Kathleen Wynne on Amanda, Rafaelle, and Ms. Kish’s behalf. My own premier seems to be having some slander troubles that remind me so much of many people who have been wrongfully convicted and accused. I want the letter to stress the importance of fighting back against organized crime. I will post it here if I ever get it finished properly. In the meantime, take care, Chris.
        Hope you are having a fabulous time in Vegas — that is one spot I haven’t had the chance to check out yet. Hope you all have a good break. Hopefully, I’m headed to the cathedrals of Saxony or France soon!

        • Chris Frait says:

          Hi Daphne!
          I had an awesome, extremely fun, profitable time. Have a great time striding through ancient German castles! Learn things. I’m sure you did great on your exams by the way. Sounds like you are a liberal arts major. I was a biology major/physics minor, so my tests were more objective tests and problem solving. 🙂

          • Daphne says:

            Yes, Liberal arts. The major has been changed around — I want to combine it with fine arts. It sounds like you are going to be a scientist. Good for you, whatever path your studies lead you to.

    • Elias says:


      • Chris Frait says:

        Thanks, Elias!
        Just got home yesterday. Finshed about$350.00 up. Awesome trip! Checked out a lot of great clubs and stuff. When Amanda is finally free of all this nonsense, maybe we can all celebrate with a night out in her honor at “Treasure Island (my personal favorite).” 🙂

  30. Brian Jacobson says:

    Amanda, I’ve never heard any mention in these blogs about the fact that Italy ruled against you in a trial in which you were not allowed to defend yourself (it wasdefinitavely ruled in Guede’s trial that he did not act alone), I’m pretty sure you know this but just to be safe I’m adding it now. This will be your best weapon against extradition should it come that far, as it is a violation of your rights under both Italian and US law.

    • William Benjamin says:

      @ Brian Jacobson. You and I think the same. Under her US constitutional protections there are several protections Knox is eligible for. But there is a problem with the way the extradition treaty was written. There exist a flaw of interpretation of the treaty in whether the US might be obligated to accept an Italian interpretation of the application of the US constitution on an American citizen. It is bazaar but I believe it to be possibly true. If I had my way we would just dissolve that treaty now that we know that even with their best efforts, Italy just can’t tell the difference between right and wrong.

      This can all be stopped at the gate by the Secretary Of State by simply rejecting the request. Then it’s over. Miss Knox has to give up her dreams of being a world traveler but she gets to have a reasonable life. I am highly uncomfortable with depending on “rolls of the dice” when it comes to what should be rock solid constitutional protections for US citizens.

  31. Jack Friend says:

    I for one have never felt Amanda or her family has shown any disdain for the Kertcher family. I do think, however, that Amanda has a right to be concerned first and foremost about Amanda and not spend the rest of her life flagellating herself because she should have said this or should have said that to show “real” remorse. There are always those willing to lash out at others seeming inadequacies to keep from looking at themselves, especially against someone who has become a public personality. Gossip magazines and papers are a multi-billion dollar industry and hey you can open US Magazine to find out that Celebrities Eat Pizza, just like us! They also walk their kids to school, just like us! How shocking! Who knew! The British tabloids have made so much money from Amanda Knox I think they should pay Patrick Lumumba. Perhaps they could fork over a cool million and call it even. I would argue the person who has been slandered the most is -Amanda Knox.

    I have always seen the Patrick Lumumba matter as the product of a very human situation that can happen when someone is under duress. Miss Knox was a 20 year old woman in a foreign country experiencing her first major encounter with law enforcement. She was confined to a room, outnumbered against older and seasoned professional interrogators. When I am stopped for a speeding ticket, the moments before the officer approaches the car is one of anxiety. I have friends who are police officers who find it funny that so many caught speeding give the same lies about how fast they were going or tell a story about why it was justified. It is called being human.

    Moreover, some are so concerned about what Amanda did in giving the name of Patrick Lumumba, but whenever innocent people are exonerated and police and prosecutor’s are shown to have committed grievous and sometimes intentional errors there is nary a sound. Why? Fear? Why worry, it can’t happen to me! It is no wonder why human history is filled with countless examples of tyranny. Fear of our neighbor causes us to give the state too much power and they in turn take all our liberty.

    Sadly, the case of Amanda Knox has created a vehicle by which I can advise my children to be wary of authority and to not blindly assume those in positions of authority have your best interests at heart. I have advised my children to never answer police questions unless an adult or attorney is present. I hate to utter this as I am sure Amanda and her family already feel this way but in reality as a foreign student she should have been on a plane to Seattle within 24 hours of the murder as Rudy Guede was still on the loose.

    I wonder what would have happened had say Raffaele had to be away on the night of the murder. Would those who are so quick to judge be much happier today if their had been 2 victims instead of 1?

    As an admirer of Socrates I am glad to state I know very little, often that very little consists of knowing that I do not know. I am glad that those who can judge so easily now know the perfect way to act and perfect way to behave should they come home and find their husband, wife, or roommate murdered. You will be able to wow the police and prosecutors with your innocence. Sadly, most if this should happen, will not realize they have now become Amanda Knox but will find some rationalization as to why they are different.

    • Nasim says:

      Would you ever tell a police officer you were speeding because you were afraid of a black man named Patrick who had just raped and killed your friend? Can you see how that might land you in hot water? P.S. It’s spelled Kercher.

      • Mark says:

        Ironically such a story would have what Amanda’s “confession” lacked – internal and logical consistency. Fleeing from a murderer who witnessed you watch him kill is something that makes sense.

        What was Amanda’s “confession” again? That she just kind of hung out while Patrick raped and killed Meredith. And then when he was done with that he of course had to go outside, find the perfect rock, bring it back in, smash the window, trash the room, then leave. And what was Amanda doing during all this? Baking a pizza in the kitchen?

        It’s a story that has no narrative, no comprehensible linear sequence of events, no grounding in tangible structure. It’s a story of an interrogee regurgitating base suggestions created by the police. The police of course show no curiosity in its lack of depth, it’s total vagueness and disconnectedness from the reality of the crime, because they aren’t on the look out for the truth, but are constructing probable cause to arrest the one who they already know to be the correct killer.

        I don’t think I will ever not be fascinated by what this case brings out in people or how incapable they are of putting together the most basic of puzzles with the most obvious solutions.

        • Willis Coleman says:

          It is a classic passive-aggressive confession, designed to get the police off her back while giving them a muddled story that makes their job as hard as possible.

          • Max Green says:

            To “get the police off her back” by going into jail is certainly a “classic”. Introduced by Stan Laurel I suppose?

          • Antony says:

            Willis Coleman: “It is a classic passive-aggressive confession, (my emphasis)

            What’s this supposed to mean, Willis? Are you suggesting that confessing to being present while naming people not involved in the crime is a regular ruse? What exactly does it achieve?

            It is a classic, yes. It’s classic police coercion – accompanied by denial of rights and concealment of methods used. Anyone familiar with police behaviour whenever they can avoid independent scrutiny, recognises it straight away.

            “…designed to get the police off her back while giving them a muddled story that makes their job as hard as possible.”

            Get real, Willis. You’re claiming that these hardened cops, a dozen of them present, allowed themselves to be manipulated by a 20-year-old girl who didn’t speak the local language, late at night in their own police station. Can’t you see just how ridiculous that is?

          • Angela Smitherman says:

            Gee, Willis, I thought the “staged burglary” was supposed to get the police off her back? If she “knew” she’d already staged a burglary, why then “confess” to being in the kitchen while Patrick was in the bedroom murdering Meredith? Was Patrick also going to morph into the burglar? Or do you agree that offering up these two different scenarios makes no sense? Especially since, as I’m sure you’ll insist, Amanda was never subjected to police coercion of any kind. Oh no, none.

      • Jack Friend says:

        Thanks for your keen eye in noticing my typo!

        I recall when I was 18 and caused an auto collision where I hit the rear of a car stopped for the railroad tracks as I was too concerned about the music on the radio. It was my mother’s car and she had unfortunately let the insurance lapse. When I went before the judge I spontaneously declared that I did not know my mother had let the insurance lapse. A short time later the bailiff advised me in the future to never be foolish enough to offer information that was not requested.

        Since I was fortunate at age 20 to not have endured the situation Miss Knox went through, I cannot say how I would have fared. I may have likely made many of the same foolish mistakes she made by trusting people in authority. Since I am fortunate to be over 40 now, I know far better how to act in such a situation. I would have immediately left Italy/Went to the US Embassy and not spoken to anyone until I had the advice of legal counsel.

        At an age where I feel comfortable with myself and have no need to prove anything to anyone, I have also no need to establish a moral superiority to Miss Knox to prop up my self esteem. Since I do not know her, she may in fact be a far superior person to me or you.

        Lastly, I do not trust the motives of those in authority and often trust them the least. I have witnessed countless police and prosecutors tell the world certain persons were guilty only for later evidence to prove them quite innocent. Although I concede many blindly trust those in authority no matter what and that is why human history is littered with tyrannical governments that abuse the rights of its citizens. I am quite sure there are many alive who believe Mr. Putin that the armed men occupying public buildings in the Ukraine have absolutely no connection to Russia or its military but Mr. Obama has basically said Mr. Putin is a liar. Whom to believe? Mr. Putin is the President of Russia so maybe we should believe him? After all, he is in a position of authority.

        If truth and justice were such easy things to come by with regard to human nature, the nations of India and Italy would not be so divided over the case of the Italian Marines charged in India with killing 2 Indian fisherman. Many Italians protest their potentially facing imprisonment in India and many Indians view them as murderers. Many in Italy resent those in the US who question their system of justice but many in Italy freely criticize the Indian justice system.

        Often in our world truth and justice come down to who has the most power and bigger guns.

      • Rob H says:

        “I remember confusedly that he killed her” (convincing?) – yes, well, thanks “nasim” once again for your profound erudition on the subject of Ms Knox’s interrogation. Once again you confirm, this time, with your borrowed metaphor, that she was a suspect in a criminal investigation and entitled to legal representation.

        Yet you continue to demonstrate your ignorance of the phenomenon of “false confessions” and the circumstances in whch they occur. And, tacitly at least, you continue to bestow credit on police investigators who were so incompetent that they rushed off like fools to arrest (and mistreat) Lumumba without first testing their “evidence”.

        But we don’t have a recording of Ms Knox’s last interrogation because of budget cuts apparently – how very very convenient. 182,000 euros on a facile cartoon – thousands of phone calls tapped (including Ms Knox’s) and everything else in the questura recorded, but they couldnt afford to record the events of the biggest and proudest night in the history of Perugian policing. Isn’t that rather odd?

        You might think that until you realise that they came to understand that it was in fact their most shameful moment and that they needed to cover it up.

      • Elias says:

        Masim, like a). that never happened as you state it. b). the police discovered the text to Patrick, shoved the phone in her face, yelled at her, hit her, tag teamed her, while she was already sleep deprived and exhausted from the week, and then they asked her to imagine what it might have been like if Patrick had done it…while lying to her, denying her an attorney. She trusted them, she had a moment of doubt where she thought maybe she have blocked memory due to shock…so she told them the imaginary scenario they asked for…and said she doubted any of it was true…took a nap and recanted the whole thing… c). the statement she signed was written in Italian legalese…as language she had exactly 5 weeks of studying.

        She also thought the her statements were being prepared for “the mayor” of the city, the public minister, whom none of the 12 police, nor the interpreter bothered to inform her was actually a prosecutor — a prosecutor I might add who has since been convicted of lying, abuse of power, and illegal wiretapping in the Monster of Florence case.

        Why don’t you spend some time fighting to see Mignini serve his time — with the passion that you add your nonsense to this blog’s commentary sections..?

        Do you really think all the above was fair? Try imagining walking in her shoes at that time. –If you have any fairness you will open your mind and give equal time to the idea that she is innocent.

      • GT says:

        And how do we spell your full name, “Nasim?”

  32. Rhode Island says:

    Dear Ms. Knox,

    While I do not believe that you are a murderer, I think you need a serious bout of self-examination.

    The disdain that you showed for Meredith and her family was despicable. Your apology was too little, too late.

    You tried to send Patrick Lumumba to jail for a murder he never committed … and you knew that. Then again, you offered an apology (through an inteview????) so you think it’s a debt repaid. Hardly.

    You are not “innocent” and you are not a “victim”. You could say you are innocent of murder, but you are far from a victim and you are very guilty of trying to send an innocent man to jail for the rest of his life.

    • Isis says:

      Dear Rhode Island,

      I have no idea what you mean by Amanda’s disdain for Meredith and her family. While the other roommates lawyered up immediately (with excellent reason, as we’ve seen, so they can hardly be blamed), Amanda tried to help the police find Meredith’s murderer in any way she could. As for Patrick, it’s the police who owe him an apology, not Amanda.

      More to the point, if you’re railroaded for a crime you didn’t commit, then that makes you a victim even if you are not an angel. What makes Meredith a victim is not the fact that she was an angel, but the fact that she was murdered. What makes Patrick a victim is not the fact that he is an angel, but the fact that the police wrongfully accused him of a crime that he didn’t commit (and apparently beat him while he was in custody on top of it). What makes Amanda a victim is not the fact that she is an angel, but the fact that she was railroaded.

      And should you ever get convicted of a crime you didn’t commit, you’d better hope people don’t judge you the way that you judge Amanda because if they do, then NOBODY will come to your aid, because you sure don’t sound like an angel.

      • Nasim says:

        Filomena and Laura didn’t “lawyer up”. They called their bosses, who happened to be lawyers, to asked them what to do, much like Raffaele and Amanda called his Carabinieri officer sister to ask her what to do. The only one who “lawyered up” was Giacomo, and if you know anything about him you know why.

        • Isis says:

          Yes, yes, yes. And if their bosses had been veterinarians or mechanics, they surely would have called their bosses for “advice” anyway. In any case, I don’t blame those two women: given the mess that the Perugian police made, they were quite right to be worried. Pity they didn’t warn Amanda though. Perhaps it didn’t occur to them that she honestly didn’t understand how these things work in their neck of the woods. Amanda is now paying the price.

          • Isis says:

            I also bet Amanda’s parents are kicking themselves for teaching their kids that cops were there to help them(!).

        • Bob Magnetti says:

          So . . .

        • Rob H says:

          Silenzi, despite having a solid alibi, was clearly terrified that he would be fitted up by the police. Returning to Perugia he arranged to get off the train a stop or two before the town and was met by his representative. He knew or was told about the danger.

          Romanelli and Mezzetti sought legal advice – looked after themselves.

          Ms Knox, innocent of deed and innocent of spirit went out of her way to help the police. And it cost her dear

        • Sarah H says:

          The roommates immediately called lawyers for legal advice and that advice, apparently, was to get away ASAP. By any reasonable definition used by American speakers of English, this constituted “lawyering up.”

        • Doug Moodie says:

          You’re saying, Nasim, unequivocally, that Sollecito called the Carabinieri before and independently of the arrival of the postal police? Else, why the need to call his sister to ask what to do?

        • TomG says:

          So let me get this one straight! You said “They called their bosses, who happened to be lawyers, to asked them what to do,” thereby suggesting that the fact that they were lawyers is purely incidental. So, If I found that that one of my flatmates had been brutally murdered I should phone up my bosses and ask them what to do, but what if my bosses ran a restaurant!! what good would they do!!??!! No! I think that Filomena and Laura were a bit more streetwise, if they did call their bosses it was probably because they were LAWYERS and not website designers, or ran a pizza parlour or were specialist in naughty underwear, or perhaps their bosses called them and gave them advice on what to do!

          Raffaele and Amanda submitted to interrogations from the police with no representation whatsoever. If you can quote sources that Filomena and Laura at no time submitted to police interrogations without a lawyer then I might just take you seriously. I fail to see the similarity in Raffaele phoning his sister for advice, she’s hardly going to be able to provide a legal defence for him in the circumstances, he phoned her for moral support in much the same way that Amanda phoned her mother for the same moral support. Filomena and Laura took legal advice for very different reasons.

        • Elias says:

          Calling their bosses was ipso facto lawyering up, as asking their bosses what to do gave them legal advice.


          In the words of Bill Cosby, “double dumb-ass.”

    • Antony says:

      Rhode Island, the “accusation” against Patrick Lumumba was manifestly, blatantly, obviously coerced by police. There is nothing about it that could remotely have been a spontaneous statement by Amanda.

      You don’t believe Amanda committed the murder. So you must have some explanation for how the entire travesty came about. Here’s your answer: it stems wholly from the police’s need to cover up their own blunder in arresting 3 innocent people on November 6, and announcing to the world they had solved the crime. The youngest of the 3, the only girl, the only foreigner, who couldn’t speak Italian, was the easy target to take the blame.

    • Max Green says:

      Put into prison to waste four years of your life there for murder you didn’t commit, thereby sexually assaulted doesn’t make you a victim? Then I wonder what it makes you.

      • Nasim says:

        Amanda was sexually assaulted in prison? Why didn’t she tell her lawyers or her family? Why am I first hearing about it from Max Green?

        • HH says:

          I think Max Green meant that Amanda was sexually HARRASSED in prison. She did tell her lawyers and her family about that.

        • Max Green says:

          I guess you could listen to a lot of untold stories when you go on a visit into a jail.
          So let’s assume I’ve mistaken the case with some of those stories I heard. I apologise.

        • BigDinBoise says:

          She was sexually harassed by the warden and a guard Nasim. I’m sure you know this and are just being your usual captious self.

        • Rob H says:

          I don’t suppose it necessarily rises to the level of assault, but certainly harassment as Ms Knox was intimidated by the prison commandant in Capanne. He was reported to her lawyers – having repeatedly asked her for sex at late night meetings he summoned her to.

          Later the same man (Argiro) was suspended as a result of allegations that he sexually assaulted another female prisoner.

          But there were two other instances described in Ms Knox’s book which probably did meet the criteria of assault – there was unwanted physical contact – and which did have a sexual motivation.

          I am not at all sure “nasim” has much regard for women; his sardonic attitude (displayed above) would lead me to believe that he regards such abuse, of which he is well aware, as trivial or inconsequential.

        • Elias says:

          She did. Pressing the case could have brought more of the same by prison employees…or prisoners.

    • Andrea Jonasson says:

      How would Amanda have known that Patrick was an innocent man if she is not the murderer either?

      At a press conference, DeFelice that the American “buckled” and told us “what we knew to be true”. What did the police know to be true? That Patrick was the murderer? They got Amanda to buckle and say so. It wasn’t her idea. It was what police ‘already knew’. After a break and some rest, she tried to explain that the events in her statements did not seem real, and that they should not be used as evidence against Patrick. The only people who are trying to send innocent people to jail in this case are the Italian authorities – first Patrick and then Amanda and Raffaele.

      Read up on the Reid interrogation technique, and see if you can understand how Amanda came to “buckle” and
      sign the statements during the overnight interrogation.

    • Tom Mininger says:

      I am proud of Amanda for staying and trying to help while Meredith’s other friends fled and the pot supplying Italian law student flatmates lawyered up without warning Amanda.

      The police betrayed a young person who grew up trusting authority and whose family never had a scrape with the law. Imagine one of your 40 hour work weeks where for the entire 40 hours you are badgered with the same questions over and over, in a language still foreign to you, with growing sleep deprivation.

      Then comes the unrecorded middle-of-the nighter with 12 cops where Amanda was delirious with fear and exhaustion. This kind or coercion happens every night around the world.

      Mignini and the police wiretapped over 39,900 phone calls, other interviews, and police holding room conversations, yet they can’t produce the recording of the most important “interview” in Perugia history or the one where Patrick claims he was beaten?

      Here’s a good article on the creeps Amanda was subjected to that night:

      For people who want to learn more about how innocent people are particularly vulnerable to coercion:

      Study abroad programs need to make sure students have a number to call in a crisis no matter whether the student thinks they need help or not.

    • Mandos says:

      I can’t recall a single instance of Amanda showing disdain to the Kerchers, so please, do elucidate. Then again, whatever Amanda does or doesn’t do is invariably turned against her or explained in the worst possible light. Amanda doesn’t mention Meredith or the Kerchers? She’s a self-absorbed narcissist. Amanda reaches out to Kerchers? She’s a manipulative sociopath abusing Meredith’s memory to look good. Amanda speaks up for herself? So unseemly! Doesn’t she realize the Kerchers are grieving?! She must remain silent! Amanda remains silent? Why doesn’t she speak up? She must be guilty! Heads I win, tails you lose indeed…

      Another observation: When I first delved into this case, I assumed Amanda and Raffaele were guilty. A pretty safe bet really, since a defendant that actually reaches the trial stage usually is guilty. I work as a law clerk for one of the courts of appeal in the Netherlands and I estimate we find around 90%-95% of all defendants guilty. I suspect this percentage is about the same in other countries as well. This is, of course, a general feature of justice systems, since usually the manifestly innocent people get weeded out during the initial police investigation or else the prosecution declines to press charges due to the weakness of the evidence collected. However, one thing I noticed in this case was that the pro-innocence side mostly kept to discussing the facts and the logical interpretation of evidence. On the other hand, the pro-guilty side generally engaged in innuendo (“She has the eyes of a killer”), drawing conclusions of guilt based on irrelevant facts (“She bought sexy panties shortly after the murder. Sexy. Panties. Nobody buys sexy panties after their roommate was brutally murdered! Therefore, she is guilty.”) or misrepresenting the facts and evidence. In fact, I haven’t read a single pro-guilt scenario that didn’t either twist the facts, lie by omission or completely ignore exculpatory evidence.

      Case in point, the Lumumba ’accusation‘: The general pro-guilt argument is that Amanda accused an innocent man. That implies Amanda accused Lumumba of her own volition, without pressure by the police. If that were the case, that would indeed be quite damning (and pretty idiotic as well, by the way, considering –assuming a popular pro-guilt scenario- she specifically cleaned up her and Raffaele’s traces but purposely left those of Rudy Guede and she also knew Lumumba was working in his bar that night and could very well have plenty of witnesses corroborating his alibi. This is, by the way, one of the many paradoxes that habitually pop up in the pro-guilt scenario’s: Amanda is both a criminal genius AND an imbecile). Upon reading the actual transcript however, it becomes readily apparent the police was feeding her information and pushing her in certain directions (‘We know Lumumba was there, you must have suppressed the memory!’) until she gave the ‘right‘ answer. The Perugian police basically broke all the primary tenets of a police interrogation: Keep your questions open, don’t assume anything, don’t say the suspect is wrong if you don’t have hard proof on the contrary (and certainly NEVER lie, like for example: “Raffaele already confessed and said you left his apartment.” when Raffaele had said no such thing). The police came up with a scenario involving Lumumba, based on the text message found on Amanda’s phone, didn’t believe Amanda when she told them she didn’t meet Lumumba that night at all, kept pressuring Amanda about it during an hours long interrogation, suggested that Amanda must’ve repressed the memory of Lumumba’s actions, after which Amanda finally remembered ‘in a dreamlike state’ that Lumumba murdered Meredith, during which she incidentally got many aspects of the crime scene manifestly wrong. For further discussion of this point, I’ll refer to the extensive research done regarding the causes and nature of false confessions during police interrogations. As a final point, I must mention that Amanda has apologized repeatedly to Lumumba both in the media as well as in court. The question whether those are sufficient, is for Patrick Lumumba to decide (though judging from his remarks about Amanda, I doubt it).

    • Elias says:

      Get your facts straight, she owed the Kerchers no apology. And you can imagine her lawyers were given instructions by the Kercher’s money seducing attorney to make no approaches to the Kerchers.

      The Police took the name Patrick Lumumbu from Amanda’s phone, and forced that name as the killer, as they were joyed to try and railroad a black man, the harassed Amanda with that name deep into the night, in a sleep deprived week, as well as smacking her in the back of the head a few times, not allowing her a restroom break when her period had started, tagged teamed her to exhaustion and then used conversational hypnosis to convince her, while in an exhausted state that she had met PL, that she had been in another room and heard something. She was delirious, sleep deprived, in shock, terrified, then they wrote up a statement in Italian, a language she was 5 weeks into learning, let alone any legal terms…and made her sign the statement while exhausted. They essentially used the exact interrogation techniques that the N. Koreans used against US soldiers in the Korean war. She got to fitfully sleep for 2 hours on 2 hard chairs. Upon awaking, still tired, she immediately asked for writing instruments to correct that induced fantasy statement.

      Patrick Lumumbu first confirmed Amanda’s claim about how they were treated in the Questura that he was beaten too.

      Amanda is absolutely innocent, and she was victimized by an immoral, unethical, corrupt police force, and a deluded, corrupt (now convicted and sentenced to 16 months in prison) Mignini.

      You owe Amanda an apology for this nonsense. And probably would do well to apologize to your mother for not treating people better.

    • Stephane G says:

      « Disdain » ???! What disdain ?!

      Amanda showed nothing but compassion for Meredith and her family. She reacted with her own feelings and her own way to express them. So what ?! Why should she apologize ?! You say you believe she is innocent of that murder. She nonetheless had to spent 4 years of her young life in jails. Who apologized for it ? From the beginning she and her family had to face an unheard-of worldwide hysterical campaign – not of disdain – but of sheer and fierce hate. Seven years after, thousands still call for a witch hunt and apparently enjoy destroying her life and reputation. They sadistically feast their eyes on her wounded honor and her pain. How many apologized ? Who needs a serious bout of self examination here ?!

      Amanda did not “try to send Lumumba”, nor anyone, in jail. Or if she did, supposing that she was consciously lying, she also accused herself of being an accessory to that crime you said she did not commit. It was a coerced internalized false confession. She spontaneously cast doubt on her own memory and her own testimony only a few hours later and several times afterwards.

    • Som Nathan says:

      Another guilter going blah… Blah…blah. Just laying all the responsibility on Ms. Knox on anything that she did or didn’t do. They won’t give credit to her that she was a brave 20 years old doing her best and coping with a very adverse situation in a very hostile environment. Who knows how you Mr or Ms. Rhode Island would have reacted when put in a similar real life situation.
      You are damn right Amanda Knox did not murder Meredith Kercher. Rudy Guede is the sole killer. Amanda was put into situation by Perugian police and prosecutors. She shouldn’t have the situation at all.
      She is innocent.

    • William Benjamin says:

      Dear “Rhode Island”. While I agree with you a little I also disagree with you very much. You fail to apply cop-ability to the authority (the police) that Miss Knox had “decided” to assist. Her allegation against Patrik was at the request of the police. And she had been swayed from legal representation prior to her making that assistance. Do you really think that if she had been provided with a lawyer that it would have gone the same way?

      On your other point about disdain for Meredith’s family. What disdain? What are you referring to? I’m confused by this remark from you. Please explain.

      • William Benjamin says:

        Absolutely neither Knox or Sollecito nor any supporter of Knox or Sollecito holds any disdain whatsoever for Meredeth or Meredeth’s family. Period! You are an ignorant person.

    • elbee says:

      What disdain for the Kerchers? I’ve only ever heard Amanda express sadness and sympathy for their loss. She didn’t kill their daughter but she was accused and convicted wrongfully for that murder. She became a victim herself. There are two tragedies here, the crime Rudy committed against Meredith and her family and the wrongful conviction of an innocent woman and an innocent man. Amanda’s energies necessarily shifted to defending herself and clearing her name. That is separate from Guede’s criminal and should be no insult to the Kercher family . There’s no disrespect when one undertakes to clear themselves of a crime they didn’t commit.

  33. Somebody says:

    Amanda, since you try to prove everybody that you are innocent, can you please explain this: Police overheard a jail conversation between you and your parents on 17 November, when you Amanda said, “I am very, I am very worried about this thing with the knife … because there is a knife of Raffaele’s …”. Tell us why were you so worried about this knife, if you knew there wasn’t nothing that could incriminate you since you were innocent?

    • Amanda says:


      When I was told a kitchen knife belonging to Raffaele had Meredith’s blood on it, it meant I was either being lied to or something terribly wrong was going on with the investigation. Meredith had never been to Raffaele’s house and Raffaele’s kitchen knives had never been to ours. It was impossible that her blood could have been on one of his kitchen knives, so that fact that the police were saying this was incredible and scary and worrying. It didn’t make sense, but neither did it make sense for me to be in prison. In addition to Meredith’s murder, something horrible was happening and I didn’t know what.

      As it turns out, Meredith’s blood was not found on any of Raffaele’s kitchen knives. The kitchen knife tested negative for blood and turned out not to have Meredith’s DNA on it. The investigators and prosecutor lied. So i was right to be worried after all.


      • PK777 says:

        Amanda. When you spoke about the knife (as above) your dad replied “Well, here, here, here are the facts… we talked yesterday with the lawyer and asked him about the knife. Every time that they have to review an item we have an expert there that will review it with them. This is an example of… this knife of which they are talking about, they have never notified anything about the knife.” so at that point how could you know there were reports of MK blood on the knife? Like Rhode Island above I do not think you are guilty of murder but I think there is a lot more truth you can tell. I don’t think you will have peace until you tell the truth.

        • William Benjamin says:

          Very interesting. please provide the source of the quote “Well, here, here, here are the facts… ” so I may examine it for myself.

          • PK777 says:

            Hi Will B. Thanks for reply. My quote is I believe from a recorded conversation. Google search the quote for sources. Would be good to find Date of knife seizure Date of interview Date lab tests released

        • Sarah H says:

          PK777, the media was full of false reports, including false reports about Meredith’s blood on a knife. There are many ways Amanda could have heard this, including seeing a report on TV about it or hearing about it from another prisoner.

          • PK777 says:

            Thanks for reply Sarah H. I agree with the point you make. 6th November – knife seized. 15th November knife results leaked to press. 17th November conversation recorded.

        • Som Nathan says:

          @PK777. If really want to know what really happened that night of Nov. 1 2007, only two people can answer that question. Meredith Kercher and Rudy Guede. Meredith can’t answer your question, and you know why. Rudy Guede will not answer that question because Perugian prosecutors have made a deal with to keep his mouth shut so a leaner punishment can be worked out for him. If he tells the truth (which he will one day soon), lot of big-wigs in Perugian police department, prosecutors and judges will be in trouble. They have already self-awarded themselves, patted on each others back for solving and convicting two innocent people on falsified and fictional evidence.

          As far as Amanda is concerned she has answered all the questions to the best of her knowledge she had then and what she knows now. All answers were as honest and straight forward.

          Now guilters here and elsewhere are now well trained to twist and turn the statements that Amanda and her family made, into the guilters mental arrangement of believing or not believing.

          Bottom line being that Amanda used “the knife” for cooking and that’s about it.

          “The knife” in question is not the murder weapon. It doesn’t fit the profile of the wounds on Meredith’s neck, there is no evidence that Amanda carried the plain kitchen knife out of Raffaelle’s apartment.

          Genetic analysis of knife is flawed, because non-standard procedures were used for analysis. Samples were too small to conduct the tests.

          Prosecutors and guilters will keep on harping about, “oh you know what, they found Meredith’s DNA on the knife”, because if they don’t, the case is lost.

          They want these two innocent people Amanda & Raffaelle in jail no matter what the evidence is or better yet there is no evidence.

          Each group has their own motivations. Prosecutor Migninni and his subsequent buddies like Crini want conviction so their mistakes and lies and goof-ups remain covered.
          Francesco Maresca is chronically greedy so he wants money that is why he wants conviction.

          I have no idea why these low life guilters want two innocent, young, decent, never-in-trouble-before young adults be locked away for life.
          Where as the real killer Rudy Guede gets to be released from prison pretty soon.


          Little Amanda is facing a Huge Monster. Will she be able to defeat this Monster??

          Don’t know.

        • Doug Moodie says:

          Pk777, here is a link to a guardian news article about the knife dated Nov 15, 2007. Note the “overheard” conversation was on Nov 17.


      • Nasim says:

        Hello Amanda. Stefanoni’s sample B was positive for Meredith’s DNA. The simplest explanation is that Meredith’s DNA was on the blade. People have questioned whether there might have been laboratory contamination, but you cannot state as fact that Meredith’s DNA was not on the blade. Your comment “I’m worried about the knife” makes the most sense in the context of you knowing it was possible that Meredith’s blood would be found in Raffaele’s apartment.

        • Sarah H says:

          The simplest explanation for the minuscule amount of what might have been Meredith’s DNA on the knife — in the absence of any blood at all — is laboratory contamination, as testified to by the court-appointed independent experts.

          And any comment Amanda made about the knife would be explained by the fact that there were early false reports of Meredith’s blood on the knife. Amanda hadn’t yet learned that the police and prosecution were out-and-out liars.

        • Mark says:

          But the knife has been ruled out as the murder weapon. It doesn’t match the wounds or the imprint left by the actual knife used to slaughter Meredith Kercher. This is regardless of even Amanda’s actual involvement.

          And yes, I understand the Friends of Rudy Society (guilters and prosecution) have invented a phantom second knife which was used with surgical precision in such a way that it exactly matched a wound you would have expected from the smaller imprint knife right down to matching hilt bruising, while only maintaining loose “compatibility” with the kitchen knife if the kitchen knife was used in a bizarre manner that managed to leave behind none of its distinguishing characteristics or any evidence of its existence at all.

          I think even Ted Bundy could do better than that for an excuse, but then again I understand that when you love somebody, such as all you guilters who seem to love Rudy, you are able to bury yourself in denial and rationalize away all the overwhelming evidence.

          That’s why I think this case is better left in the hands of neutral investigators who don’t have such a strong bias towards exonerating Rudy.

        • Andrea Jonasson says:

          Meredith’s DNA was not found on the blade in any way that is trusted by science to be reliable. The machine said too low. The RIS carabinieri said you need at least two separate amplifications for a reliable result. Conti and Vechiotti said both of these things.

          Combine that with the fact that the knife tested negative for blood, it is incompatible with two of Meredith’s knife injuries, it does not fit the bed sheet stain (no matter how many YouTube videos you make), requires an astoundingly unlikely transportation scenario, was plucked at random from Raffaele’s drawer, was unsealed and repackaged for shipping at the police station, the tester lied on the stand (re TMB tests and clean gloves) and has yet to disclose all of her testing data to the defense…

          No person who understands a little bit of science and can do basic scientific reasoning can look at the knife evidence osmotically or any other way and think that it is even remotely likely that this knife was used to harm Meredith.

          Nasim, you cannot take Amanda to task for saying that Meredith’s DNA was never on this knife. She knows more about it than you do. She knows that she and Raffaele did not take it to the cottage and use it to kill Meredith. Knowing what she knows, it is reasonable for her to assert with confidence that Meredith’s DNA was never on the knife.

          Your interpretation that Amanda had nothing to worry about unless she knew that Meredith’s blood could be found at Raffaele’s (it wasn’t) is pretty ridiculous given the circumstances. Do you honestly think that innocent people don’t go to jail? Amanda was learning the hard way that her original trust in Perugian law enforcement to get it right was misplaced. “Hey, we have DNA evidence that shows that you killed Meredith with this knife!” You don’t have to have committed a crime to be worried about that.

        • Rob H says:

          The contention is that the knife was used to stab Ms Kercher to death by Ms Knox; then it is contended that the knife was cleaned to remove all traces of blood with bleach; then it is contended that after the knife was so cleaned, a sample of Ms Kercher’s DNA remained on the blade. Can anyone produce any scientific evidence that shows it is possible to clean a knife of blood yet leave DNA in situ? I am not aware of any. Then of course we have the starch which rather proves the knife was in fact never cleaned as described and never had Ms Kercher’s blood on it in the first place.

        • Alex K. says:

          “but you cannot state as fact that Meredith’s DNA was not on the blade. ”

          You cannot be expected to understand science, can you? – you being a professional quack, a self-appointed prophet, the “man from Atlan” Nasseer Ahmad.

          For anyone who is familiar with the numerous errors made in the gathering, storage, processing and tasting the DNA evidence, there is a consensus that “Meredith’s DNA was on the knife blade” is a frivolous claim unsupported by valid science.

      • Paul says:

        Amanda , I’m confused has the court ruled their was no DNA from Meredith on the knife? I know it was considered a small amount and a secondary test would have been ideal. The Hellman trial experts who looked at the DNA missed a sample which tested later to be yours. What I’m asking is have both sides,the defence and prosecution now conceded that Meredith’s DNA was not on the knife? It would seem so from your response.

        • Andrea Jonasson says:

          The expert from the RIS Carabinieri lab testified that the second test is not ideal but rather required for a valid result.

      • Thor Klamet says:

        Hi Amanda,

        I want to recap my current understanding and then ask a question.

        I read the Conti-Vecchiotti Report which indicated that the knife had tested negative for DNA and for blood but that the police forensics lab had proceeded with the PCR amplification step anyway without quantification or controls or rigorous procedures to prevent contamination and had obtained a positive result for Meredith’s DNA at the single-cell level that was deemed by the court-appointed experts as “unreliable” due to the likelihood of contamination given that large quantities of Meredith’s DNA had been tested in the lab.

        The report makes it clear the police forensics lab results are junk science. Reading the report, one sees that it’s so absurd it’s almost funny.

        Amanda, are you saying that it’s even worse than this, that the positive result found by the police forensics lab that appears to be contamination wasn’t even that? Or are you referring to the fact that, with no quantification step performed, saying there was any DNA at all on the knife cannot be supported scientifically?

        For anyone who is unfamiliar with the jargon, “quantification” just means you find out how much DNA there actually is on the knife as part of the analytical procedure. Without this step, the analysis is essentially meaningless and so it is always done. After getting the “no DNA” result in the initial test, Dr. Stefanoni should have done a more sophisticated test during the PCR amplification procedure that would have determined how much DNA she had. Although she repeatedly claimed to have performed this test, the court determined she had not.

        Note that even if she had done the test, the independent experts would still have found any result unreliable because international protocols for preventing contamination weren’t followed. There’s also the point that testing the knife in the first place was an absurd thing to do but I’ll leave it here.

        • Paul says:

          My understanding is that the path to contamination must be demonstrated. One cell is one too many. The sample was taken from a scratch in the knife an area that could be difficult to clean. The lab had not processed any DNA of Meredith’s the week before. I think Amanda you should at least answer the question whether the prosecution has now agreed there was no DNA .I know the Hellman independent experts questioned its validity. It is my understanding that the matter has not been resolved. Is this something which will be in the upcoming motivational report? You have made an accusation that the police and investigators have lied which is confusing. Thank you.

          • jamesrae says:

            I do believe that in the Hellman trial this knife upon very close examination showed no scratch on the blade. It seemed to have disappeared. A repeating theme in this case.

          • HH says:

            So you would be fine with it if they convicted you of murder on that evidence? You would be fine with them tromping through the cottage like elephants stepping in blood and not changing their gloves and their foot coverings when they handled evidence?

            It would still be “one cell is one too many” for you? And don’t say this couldn’t happen to you, because regarding the way the evidence was handled, it absolutely could. You would easily end up in the same situation Amanda herself is in, trying to defend herself against junk science and people who put their faith in it and a bunch of innuendo.

          • HH says:

            And contamination has been demonstrated. In abundance. In the crime scene processing videos.

          • Bob Magnetti says:

            Italian Judge Nencini found Amandfa Knox and Raffaele Sllecito guilty of murder because he chose to ignore two court ordered scientific studies which had confirmed that the copious amounts of incriminating DNA, fingerprint, and shoe print evidence found in the victim’s bloodied bedroom was left by one person, Rudy Guede, not ‘multiple attackers’! As confirmed by the two scientific studies there is no evidence placing Knox/Sollecito in the bedroom, yet Judge Nencini ignored this lack of evidence and convicted them anyway. This is intentional injustice!

            Some seem to be suggesting that unjustified negative statements are being directed at the prosecution. If the shoe fits, wear it! Stefanoni lied about the amount of sample 36B; she withheld information from the defense about her ‘too low’ readings on sample 36B; she performed LCN testing in her lab which is not accredited to perform such testing; she failed to release the electronic data files to the defense and to the C-V independent study; she has yet to release the EDFs. Stefanoni concealed the results of TMB testing which indicated that there were/are no footsteps tracking the victim’s blood in the hallway. So, if Stefanoni had not lied and had not withheld critical information, Micheli may not have ordered a trial! I find that quite disconcerting; I find it incredulous that Stefanoni hasn’t been investigated for criminal activity.

            A point about the Italian Supreme Court throwing out the acquittal. With respect to the DNA evidence the ISC effectively endorsed a lack of discovery and tilted the playing field so heavily in favor of the prosecution, that if every case in Italy now plays by these rules, the defense has almost no chance to challenge DNA evidence, except perhaps in cases where the DNA would be strictly irrelevant to the crime.

          • Rob H says:

            It’s not confusing at all. The police lied when they said that blood had been found on the knife. There was no blood on the knife.

          • Antony says:

            “My understanding is that the path to contamination must be demonstrated.”

            Paul, does the expression “reversing the burden of proof” mean anything to you?

            The prosecution claim to have found “the murder weapon” in Raff’s kitchen. It’s easy to show that their methods of obtaining their results were invalid because the sample was open to contamination, but that’s not enough for you – you want the defence to show the exact way in which contamination actually occurred.

            Can’t you see just how unjust this “requirement” is?

          • Alex K. says:

            “My understanding is that the path to contamination must be demonstrated.”

            Your understanding goes against (a) the consensus in the scientific community; (b) the legal standards in UK and US criminal trials.

          • Andrea Jonasson says:

            Paul: My understanding is that the path to contamination must be demonstrated.

            That was the prosecutor general’s opinion via prosecution expert Novelli, as expressed in the Chieffi Report on the Hellmann-Zanetti verdict:

            Professor Novelli had warned that it is not enough to say that a result derives from contamination, but one must demonstrate it and show its origin. (Chieffi Report)

            This question goes to the burden of proof and the meaning of reasonable doubt. These are the governing principles:

            The burden of proof lies with the prosecution.

            The prosecution must prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.

            Since the prosecution asserts that this is the murder weapon, it is their job to prove it. They try to do this using Ms. Stefanoni’s test result.

            The defense says that Ms. Stefanoni’s tests do not constitute proof, since the results cannot be relied upon to be correct. If the defense is required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it is certain that the test result has been caused by a specific route of contamination, the burden of proof has been reversed, which is in violation of the governing principles. The defense’s job is not to prove innocence, but to show that the prosecution has not proved guilt.

            The test result is not reliable according to independent court-appointed experts Conti and Vecchiotti. The RIS Carabinieri also said that a minimum of two amplifications are required in order to get a reliable result. This is a strong indication that this test result cannot be accepted as proof of the guilt of Ms. Knox and Mr. Sollecto.

            If you combine the unreliability of the test result with other information about the knife (negative for blood, doesn’t fit the wounds, doesn’t fit the sheet stain, plucked at random from Raffaele’s drawer, ridiculous transportation scenario) the knife as murder weapon becomes an increasingly unlikely proposition.

            The prosecution’s position is that two young people ought to spend the next twenty-something years locked up. What kind of proof of guilt should they have to supply? It has to be better than this.

      • Scott says:

        The knife taken from Raffaele’s apartment is simply not the murder weapon which Amanda has pointed out in her post. The knife that killed Meredith was a much smaller pocket knife. She had valid grounds to be worried as a person sitting in a foreign prison for a crime someone else carried out.- Scott

        • Paul says:

          That wasn’t my question . Amanda is calling the investigators liars insinuating that all sides now agree there was no DNA. This remains unclear and as such her post is deceptive .

    • Sarah H says:

      Wouldn’t YOU be worried, Somebody, if the police were falsely trying to connect you to a knife that had been used in a murder?

    • Doug Moodie says:

      Somebody, do you feel Knox has answered your question to your satisfaction? Do you believe she is telling the truth? Do you believe it could be true. Or, are you of a frame of mind such that if somebody could interpret or cast a fact or statement in a way that appears incriminating, then, that fact or statement must in truth be incriminating?

  34. Elias says:


    I am so happy for you to learn that you got to spend time with people recently who have had similar experiences to you. I know how validating and liberating that can be.

    It sounds like it was a really positive experience for you — it is exciting to see you blossom again after the “experience.” Adding the adventure of photography to your guitar, yoga, writing, it’s all so smart you are creating a cornucopia of happiness experiences for yourself that are all liberating internally.

    Spring, a time for blossom and rebirth.

    Some have noted that different branches of Christianity, as we approach Easter focus on different sides of a dichotomy. Catholicism focuses on the suffering of the crucifixion — one could see that as a psychological concept too, where a human may become overly focused or habituated to re-run the emotions or thoughts of being hurt, or victimized. On the other choice, is The Resurrection, where it is my understanding that the Greek Orthodox Church celebrates the rebirth of things in spring, the rising from the dead of The Resurrection.

    I see in all these new endeavors and expressions of yours, that you are reclaiming the Amanda who went to Italy, and was living in joy and learning…

    It’s inspiring to see you share this things — you make me smile and warm my heart.


    • Klaus, Germany, Stuttgart area says:

      Elias, I too think that it was a really good decision of Amanda to pluck up courage and take part in that event you mentioned: rewarding because of meeting people having experienced similar things but simultaneously challenging because of potential vulnerability one is exposed to – either immediately or in the aftermath.

      Besides that I find your dichotomy-thoughts interesting. I acknowledge that catholizism might stress the suffering and death of Jesus Christ. I am not catholic but nevertheless hold Jesus words for true when he said that he needed to accomplish his redeeming work.
      Why was no other more human way given ? I don’t know. I think it is a christian axiom.
      From the old testament I know that there always sacrifices were necessary to keep the connection to God and only specific persons like select leaders or prophets could talk to God. After Jesus’ death and resurrection
      this is no longer the case.
      However if somone was drawn that way that the mere imagination of crucifixion induces a kind of involuntary spiritual vomiting then you could hold those cruel actions still for necessary – because you believe Jesus words but not focus that much on them. Like perhaps eating your steak without always thinking in detail on how the cow was slaughtered. (granted: bad example for a potential vegetarian)
      I like the picture of blossoms and sprouts as symbol of new life manifested by the resurrection of Jesus Christ – another symbol for this would be the empty cross – more used in protestant churches.(methodists, nazarenes, lutherans and many more)
      And indeed from that time on the number of Christians – that is persons that believed that Jesus has really risen and is alive – grew. It grew because Jesus revealed his presence.
      Either immediately recognizable like it was for the assembled disciples in a locked room (without Thomas that later got a special performance on his own) or in a more hidden – and I think rather hilarious way : Jesus
      walked incognito with two of the disciples from Jerusalem to the small town of Emmaus while chatting nicely with them. Simultaneously their heavy hearts got lighter and lighter and at the point where
      he revealed himself to them they were burning for him and were full of joy.
      This state of a “burning heart” is desirable for me and would help to grow my faith and encourages me to pray for specific things. So this means that any action that kindles this burning heart is helpful.
      And yes, praying to Jesus Christ also makes vulnerable, because there is no guarantee because God is no slot machine, but nevertheless it is worth to do so. And I am still astonished how things change through prayer to Jesus Christ by persons knowing him.

  35. Chris Cantlon says:

    I believe in your innocence and I do hope you get your Happily Ever After.
    Keep your chin up.

  36. Will says:

    Stay strong, Amanda. Hatred will never be able to bring about peace, so stay above the slander, memes, stalkers, attacks,or whatever else, because they can only win if they succeed in provoking you to come down to their level of discourse and abhorrent behavior.

  37. Mark Saha says:


    Posts are getting nasty over on the Portland paper story about your attendance at the Innocence Project.

    It’s not much but my first battle scar so thought I’d share:

    “Mark Saha has been asked to stop posting on IIP, even by those who support Amanda. The reason? He is a convicted pervert, who even the IIP HQ do not want to be associated with. Thats saying something.”


    • Andrea Jonasson says:

      That kind of mean-spiritedness baffles me completely. You can be sure that if that poster is drawing anyone to his cause with his cruelty, it’s not rational people. Take heart 🙂

    • Mark says:

      The guilters will become more desperate over time as it becomes clear to even them that the Italian charade is simply an ineffectual spectacle that has no basis in objective fact or reality. They are slaves to their emotional conviction they’ve been conned into attaching to this case and will have a hard time letting go. I do believe in time they will fade away to a few loons less in number but quite comparable to the JFK crowd going on about the Grassy Knoll. Luckily they can be ignored just as easily.

    • Celeste says:

      I wouldn’t worry about it. Most people on this blog have baggage, some more than others. But since you brought up the question of who is an “exoneree”: Amanda, do you remember Angela Biriukova, the “Black Widow” who we’re told was in Capanne with you? She was acquitted of murder and went to Moldavia. Later, the prosecution appealed her acquittal and she was convicted and extradited back to Italy. As you see it, is she or was she an exoneree?

      • BigDinBoise says:

        Was this another Italian conviction based on little or no evidence? Too bad there isn’t more information about it. I’m taking it you got this from the TJMK pages Celeste?

        • Antony says:

          A Google for “Angela Biriukova” throws up only news pages in Italian, but Google Translate reveals that she was the wife of Antonio Colacioppo, a lawyer who was found murdered with 16 stab wounds in 1999.

          Biriukova was tried and acquitted in 2001, along with a former lover and an accomplice. The case rested on DNA found on cigarette butts retrieved from the scene. She was re-arrested and jailed in 2006 (I can’t make out what happened to her alleged “accomplices”).

          It’s not a case that fills me with any confidence. The pattern of investigators latching onto a suspect close to the victim is one that is all too familiar.

          • BigDinBoise says:

            I got about as far with the translated Italian news articles, and came to the same conclusion.

            What a cruel way of delivering justice; to acquit someone of a crime and then 5 years later convict them of the same crime with the same evidence. It might be easier to appeal a conviction in Italy but even though it sometimes allows for guilty people to go free, I’d rather have the no double-jeopardy system the US has then the perpetual-jeopardy system that Italy does.

        • Sarah H says:

          “Foxy Knoxy” and the “Black Widow.” The case seems to be another case of a witch hunt and “trial by media.”

      • Andrea Jonasson says:

        That sounds more like a cruel dig than an honest question. However, if on the off chance you are actually interested in a discussion about exoneration…

        Merriam-Webster gives ‘exonerate’ as ‘to clear from accusation or blame’.

        By that definition, an acquittal would appear to be an exoneration. However, in Italy, the first two levels of trial don’t deliver definitive verdicts, so somebody found not to have committed a crime in these trials is still not exonerated or cleared from accusation or blame until a definitive not guilty verdict is finalized by the Supreme Court. Of course, they aren’t deemed guilty until the definitive SC verdict either.

        Being exonerated means that you have been cleared ‘from accusation or blame’. It is perfectly possible to be innocent and not exonerated or cleared from accusation or blame. For example, it would be perfectly possible for Amanda and Raffaele to be innocent of Meredith’s murder and not be exonerated by the Italian court system.

        Not all of those attending the Innocence Project weekend as free and innocent people would necessarily be exonerees. In some cases, people are tacitly acknowledged to be innocent and released from prison without official exoneration, which would cause loss of face and openness to lawsuits against the convicting state. The West Memphis Three (Damien Echols, Jessie Misskelley, and Jason Baldwin) and Sarah Pearce are examples of tacitly acknowledged innocents who are not official exonerees.

        • Willis Coleman says:

          Tacitly acknowledged to be innocent by whom? When asked about Amanda’s attendance, the Innocence Project would only say that the conference was open to anyone.

          • Andrea Jonasson says:

            I was referring to the examples I provided, where state prosecutors tacitly acknowledged innocence by reaching deals to release people convicted of serious crimes without actually saying they were innocent, thus avoiding incurring liability for the state.

            West Memphis Three reached a deal and took an Alford plea in order to be released. Essentially they pled no contest to lesser charges while asserting innocence and were released based on time served. They had been scheduled for a hearing before the Arkansas Supreme Court, but this deal made that hearing unnecessary. Wikipedia article.

            Sarah Pearce remains convicted, but has had her sentence shortened to time served. Idaho Statesman article

            My point is that you don’t have to be exonerated to be innocent.

            Since Amanda knows she is innocent, she felt free to sign up for and attend the Innocence Network Conference. Good for her. 🙂

          • Angela Smitherman says:

            “The Innocence Project”? Is that someone’s given name? Perhaps you should indicate the specific person who would “only say” this.

  38. GT says:

    Sigh…it is springtime in Seattle, for real. This is not Perugia, although there are some sick people here also. Just let it go or whatever you want. I sure miss the picture of you hiking somewhere. I sure hate this endless discussion, in the blink of an eye you became the fodder of the media. I don’t so much care about Raffaele, but just the same, he didn’t deserve to be here either.

  39. Albert Calleros says:


    Nunca te rindas en tu lucha para la exoneracion completa. (Never give up in your fight for complete exoneration.)

    Albert (Calleros)
    Fullerton, CA, USA

  40. Scott says:

    Hi Amanda: I’m glad to see you are excelling at Photography. Most photography schools teach shooting pictures in 1/3 rds (thirds) but you shoot with balance which is very good especially for landscape shots. You also used the right lenses for the buildings you shot which is why they don’t “lean”. Will any of your pleadings be put into English (Forensic pleadings, that is) so we Americans (who don’t speak Italian) can study them? Enjoy your day. Thanks, Scott

  41. Albert Calleros says:


    No te rindas en tu lucha para la exoneracion completa. (Do not give up in your fight for complete exoneration.)

    Fullerton, CA, USA

  42. tim radford says:

    hi amanda,

    love the new photos and the beauty of spring time, i was pleased you found so much love and acceptance at the innocence project comference- you deserve it.

    praying for you

    love tim

  43. GT says:

    Juvi hall…doesn’t look like the one they took me too once. Not sure where that is. Take some pics with you and friends at the Quad, or the fountain vista. I went for the first time in a long time to hike up the hill behind Me Kwa Mooks…awesome photo ops there. BTW I just discovered the GW Outlet off Holgate…check it out, early I guess is best. All items sold by the pound! Cheap! Weird, I just realized I was once interrogated…..LOL!

    • GT says:

      Amanda the location you chose is not so much photo attractive….so….I suppose you want to say something. I wish you had been imprisoned by such a socially considerate facility as this (for those who don’t know it: http://www.kingcounty.gov/courts/detention/juvenile_detention.aspx ) I was once told to leave my chemistry class at West Seattle HS to go home right away, only to find some Seattle plain clothes goons learned of my marijuana seedlings in my closet. I got a ride downtown to police hq, helped some idiot typing up my report, got put in a room only 5 or 6 foot square for over an hour, then hauled up to Juvenile hall, where a counselor met me and my mother and apologized to her for the city wasting her time and harassing an honor student. However even then, it was nothing at all, nothing…compared to your treatment in Italy. BTW I was the highest scoring student in that chemistry class, in spite of the absence. I realize you are looking for something, I never mean to be flippant or not understanding that. NONE of us can comprehend how in the blink of an eye, such a kind person as yourself got scooped up in this, so understandably it is now a part of your life to care about others, perhaps with more real problems, but also those who simply should never have been subjected to this in the first place.

      • GT says:

        hmmm…well I am slow….now I see the picture….Springtime, & a prison. Very clever! When in a prison, seasons come and go. Different view from the inside and the outside. I don’t really like the photos at all, however….considering the author, and the idea behind them…make sure you copyright them 🙂

        • Max Green says:

          I think many people like Amanda because she always sees the beauty in everything and maybe everyone.
          When on photo safari I even went over the cemetery to catch some good light and color scenery. The sun doesn’t think.

  44. Molly says:

    Stay strong Amanda <3. I admire your bravery and strength through all the injustace you have suffered through. Keep being the intelligent and quirky wonderful person you are!

  45. Klaus, Germany, Stuttgart area says:

    The picture with the Juvenile Penitentiary reminded me of a true, tragic but simultaneously joyful situation. For this, imagine the first tree in the picture
    replaced by an overdimenisonal molehill the height of the wall one could step onto. The rest of the setting was similar like in the picture.
    It was the birthday of the Liberian bongo player of the little international church I also attend who sat behind bars in custody pending deportation to Nigeria having lived here more than 10 years. I don’t remember the legal details (and haven’t looked so deeply into it) but both
    the situation he was in and his destination seemed really wrong to me. Since we played together, me normally on guitar or trumpet, I took the latter, drove down
    to the prison and climed the “molehill” (it was a kind of rampart there before the wall) I started with a happy birthday song so he got my attention, and then played a lot of songs he knew by heart from playing together and I could so convey things I could not have said otherwise.
    Knowing more and more of those songs with deep spiritual content became a treasure for me that no one could snatch away and would serve as expression of mourning, encouragement, joy, worship or adoration in situations when words couldn’t say anything any longer. I didn’t see him ever since , but later I got an email from Nigeria that he really appreciated the music.
    The other thing that I need for spiritual growth is a good down-to-earth but not simplistic Christ centered preaching, no rants, encouragement.
    Besides that I need fellow Christians whom I can trust and if need be pray together.

  46. Klaus, Germany, Stuttgart area says:

    The Sign interpreted as direction on where to go can be challenging
    since it is hidden. I hope and pray that you Amanda, see all road signs
    that are out there for your life and get the wisdom
    on what to do in the respective situation.

  47. Jim Lovering says:

    Yes! Feel that warm sunshine, Amanda. Drink it up. Life is what happens while muddled bureaucrats toil in darkness.

  48. Larry Saltzman says:

    Lovely pictures, I am particularly fond of the cherry trees. I will be thinking positive thoughts about you.

  49. Mark (AKA Supernaut) says:

    Wow. I always suspected the Pacific N-W was a beautiful place in the Spring.

    One day …….

    • GT says:

      It is wonderful here…..springtime is awesome, so many photo opportunities for people with an eye to see it….hint hint, A… 🙂 We want more!

  50. Mark (AKA Supernaut) says:

    I’d love to see these pics in higher-res – say, at my monitor’s 1920 x 1080.

  51. Hide Baert says:


    What, what, what: Where are we going?
    Follow the arrow? Go ahead? Straighten out the sign or tilt ourselves?

    ‘Relax! Nothing is under control!’ as a meditation teacher said.

    Looking forward to more photo safaris, if possible.
    Thank you for sharing your beautiful and bewildering world.
    Best wishes, Hilde

  52. neil jarman says:

    Great Photos Amanda ! you really captured the spring season in these 🙂

  53. Kelly Conig says:

    Lovely Miss, Peace and Grace to you today.

  54. Lana says:

    Great pics Amanda!! Taking a good picture is hardy than it seems. You have talent.

    Stay strong. xo, Lana

  55. Igor says:

    It seems the beautiful trees and flovers have it better than us, feeling no pain. And not bothering which side of the fence rooted.

    • Andrea Jonasson says:

      I like the idea of the flowers being indifferent to which side of the fence they are on. They share beauty with everyone without judging. 🙂

  56. Andrea Jonasson says:

    I like the depth shown in these images (foreground middle ground background), the composition (especially at the juvenile penitentiary), and the rich colours of Seattle in the spring. One hopes that there are spring flowers growing behind the walls as well as outside them for the sake of those who live there.

    We finally had our first really spring-like day here. The ground is beginning to show. We have buds but no grass and leaves and flowers yet. Maybe we will have pussy willows this week 🙂 There were still snowmobilers on the lake on the weekend :-p

    Your last photo safari inspired me to get out with the camera again after a longish winter break. Thanks for the push! This week’s photo highlights were a pair of Whiskey Jacks and a Sharp-tailed Grouse who likes to perch high in the birch tree in front of the house.

  57. Sheena says:

    Cherry Blossoms <3 I suppose that isn't the worst view to have from a pretty dark place… Love and Light

  58. Peter says:

    Lovely pictures!
    I find it even lovelier to see such a young person (you Amanda), grow so strong through all this. I must admit that I have gone through some really difficult times in my life, and experienced hatred by many people for no good reason other than the simple projection, which is what you are going through right now by “haters”.
    Then I discovered something interesting and it made perfect sense: the only people that get to be attacked viciously, blamed uncontrollably, and considered worst criminals in the world with zero evidence, are those who are the best among us.
    Yes, that may make me seem self-serving, arrogant and so on, but unfortunately, it is true. Our rewards are not on this plane of existence, but up there, with God. It is our last test – can we preserve our faith despite all the evil attacking us?
    Lets examine that for a moment: Jesus Christ was considered worse character than Barabas who was a proven murderer. If accounts of those present are to be believed, even Barabas said “I know why I am on the cross, but why you?”.
    Some more examples: Nikola Tesla was ruined for all good he created for mankind. Edison, Marconi, J. P. Morgan, and others stole everything he created. It took decades to finally prove that radio waves, which earned Marconi a nobel prize, were actually Tesla’s invention.
    Even mother Teresa was criticized for helping poor children.
    Brilliant psychologist Eric Berne, was shunned by mainstream psychologists and even refused membership in the American association of psychologists (or whatever the exact name was).
    The discoverer of infectious diseases, Dr. Semmelweiss, was put in mental institution after publishing and presenting his findings about the true cause of puerperal fever in hospitals, which killed on average 10-30% of all new mothers. Two weeks after being put away, he was killed. It took more work by Lister and Pasteur to finally admit that Dr. Semmelweiss was actually a genius, not a nutcase.
    And the list goes on.
    I salute you for your bravery, and hope that you realize that this is normal process of our own growth. It does require strong faith, just when it seems we have the least reasons for it, and that’s our final test.
    Disclaimer: I am not religious and don’t associate myself with ANY religion whatsoever. Even Jesus was not christian.

  59. Jack Friend says:

    I love the shot with the lantern, very beautiful! I have several smaller versions in my garden. Sometimes we get so busy in life we do not stop to see the beauty in the world. I used to worry so much about my garden being perfect that I never enjoyed it. Today, I try to enjoy the time I can spend in it rather than worry if it looks perfect.

    Thanks for sharing and I hope you share more.

  60. Victoria says:

    Lovely photos. It makes me miss springtime in the northern U.S….a little.

  61. Sonya Shelley says:


    In your photo safari post, I found it so striking that you were able to single out the beauty of a flower. Our walk through the deepest river of sorrow brings to focus the beauty of God’s creation, the evidence of His love for us, and all that is most important. There is beauty all around us, but when we are swept beneath the current, we do not see it. Only when we keep our eyes above the waves, as one of my favorite songs phrases it, can we see truth and beauty and feel gratitude. Looking at your pictures, I felt of your gratitude. You are living everyone’s greatest nightmare. And yet you see beauty. And you are grateful. Gratitude is love. I am humbled by your strength and the love that is inside of you.

    The picture of the juvenile penitentiary and the beautiful trees outside it reminds me of a time when I was locked away in a psych ward at a mental hospital. I finally had the privilege of going outside, something I had not valued much before, and there were beautiful crab apple blossoms on all the trees. I admittedly broke off a branch so I could savor the beauty of nature once I got back inside, but then thought better of it and gave it to my roommate who was not able to go outdoors. She gazed on it and said, “Oh, is it still snowing outside?” As soon as I was alone, I sobbed for that poor woman, who did not realize that months had gone by since the last snow. But despite the sorrow and despair I felt at such a hopeless situation, I now see a shred of beauty and truth in it, too. It WAS spring. She did not know it yet, but someday she will know it. There is a quote from a talk by a leader of my church that I love. It references the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and I hope you can see the truth of hope in it:

    “Each of us will have our own Fridays—those days when the universe itself seems shattered and the shards of our world lie littered about us in pieces. We all will experience those broken times when it seems we can never be put together again. We will all have our Fridays.

    But I testify to you in the name of the One who conquered death—Sunday will come. In the darkness of our sorrow, Sunday will come.

    No matter our desperation, no matter our grief, Sunday will come. In this life or the next, Sunday will come.” -Joseph B. Worthlin

    I believe there is hope for you and for your future. Pay the darkness no mind. Focus only on the glorious truth that someday you will rest from all your trials with love surrounding and engulfing you.
    -Sonya Shelley

    • Julie Jorgensen says:

      “No matter our desperation, no matter our grief, Sunday will come.” That is a very touching and powerful quote Sonya. Thank you!

    • Nicholas Peters says:

      Sonya, you write very well like Ms. Knox. And yes, Ms. Knox has taking excellent pictures. Very Best Wishes to both of you.

  62. Giovanni says:

    Bellissimo …

  63. Hide Baert says:

    Hi Amanda,

    It is so nice that you came up with another photo safari page.
    Love the colors! and most comments : short and sweet.
    Here, in New Hampshire, we haven’t caught up yet. There are still remnants of snow, mixed with salt and gravel. My neighbors’ yards still look like muddy and smelly tundra (skunk and dog urine). We still keep our boots on.
    However, the warm winter parkas are gone.
    My mailman tells me “it is time for shorts (his uniform)!’; one of our running jokes ‘time for shorts or long pants’.
    Warms me up for Spring.

    Best wishes, Hilde

  64. Som Nathan says:

    Hi Amanda, lovely pictures once again. Beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder, and you got a keen on.
    Keep your Hopes alive, for someone said, Never deprive anyone of HOPE, it could be the only thing the person owns ….
    And my hope against all hopes is that your detractors will wake up and see the “Real You”.
    Stay strong and healthy. Best wishes to you and your Family.

  65. Max Green says:

    Not bad for a phone. But with the Nikon it was more fun, wasn’t it? 🙂
    I like the last pic’s view and color composition. Might be a good spot for a little 4-seasons-series.

    • GT says:

      That makes no sense. It is not an attractive place at all, actually the worst part of the city. Those trees are poorly maintained, the sign not properly secured. These are the only pictures that exist of that miserable place, I suspect. The sign directs for parking. There must be thousands of signs within a 20 block radius of Seattle U. This is an urban canyon, no nature here.

  66. Lisa says:

    There’s no other place I can find to contact you so please forgive. Just wanted to tell you I read a book about you and every single article I could find from the beginning and I know you’re innocent. I’m glad you’re enjoying life and pursuing your beautiful photography hobby. Be strong and I wish you all the happiness in the world. Love your photos.

  67. Len D. says:

    Very nice…and nobody walking through your shots.

  68. Julie Jorgensen says:

    In picture number 3 it is sad to see all that beauty walled away. I hope someone inside can still see the beautiful blossoms and that it gives them hope much as the juniper trees did for you.

    • GT says:

      Cherry blossom trees….Yes I believe that was the idea of the landscaping to actually help and uplift the spirits of the unfortunate juveniles imprisoned there (in USA people under 18?) A… is on to something, and it is so nice to see a thread where positive things are discussed. 🙂

  69. Stephane G says:

    Nice, Amanda ! That’s really not bad at all. Compositions and framings are just fine. There’s something a bit chilling in the last one with such a contrast between that sinister building and the colorful and blossoming nature. That garden by the Nippon theater seems to be a perfect place for self-reflection and meditation. And this this time my favorite may be the first one for its whole composition… and I love aubrietias ! All these remind me so much of the rising spring here, though it seems so far away.

    A few small and curious issues with the focusing in some flowers and trees at different depths… a windy day maybe ? The images are far from being noisy from what I can see, so I think you can increase the ISO setting just a little to be a bit more comfortable (higher shutter speed, smaller aperture and deeper field…) if needed.

    Happy to see the safaris are going on. You’re doing fine.

    Best. S.

  70. Nick Green (UK) says:

    Love the road sign. Not long ago in England there was a deliberate policy of not trimming back leaves that were obscuring road signs, on the reasoning that it would force drivers to slow right down to read them. Perhaps it is still in effect, I don’t know. I prefer Satnav anyway.

  71. Joe Minor says:

    Not sure if you took these pictures but they are gorgeous shots. I’ve been playing photography for a while now so I appreciate these. Hope you are well, keep up the fight until you win which you will.

  72. Klaus, Germany , Stuttgart area says:

    Nice pictures, Amanda, the second one reminds me of a song that came to my mind when
    looking at the lantern.

  73. Scott says:

    Nice pictures…and Congrats for winning “moral damages” in your privacy suit. – Sincerely, Scott

  74. Patrick says:

    LOL, funny sequence of photos. Glad you still have a sense of humor.

    Called to mind a poem I found long ago:

    “GATHER ye rosebuds while ye may,
    Old Time is still a-flying:
    And this same flower that smiles to-day
    To-morrow will be dying.

    The glorious lamp of heaven, the sun,
    The higher he ‘s a-getting,
    The sooner will his race be run,
    And nearer he ‘s to setting.

    That age is best which is the first,
    When youth and blood are warmer;
    But being spent, the worse, and worst
    Times still succeed the former.

    Then be not coy, but use your time,
    And while ye may, go marry:
    For having lost but once your prime, You may for ever tarry.”
    Robert Herrick. 1591–1674

  75. Roger says:

    Wonderful !!! A delicate eye .

  76. Oliver says:

    Nice pictures. By the way, I’m never buying anything Italian ever again, neither will my friends and family. Travel plans to Italy have been canceled as well. We are also moving to boycott anything even remotely Italian.

    • Stephane G says:

      “For the sake of ten righteous people, I will not destroy Sodom”. Thus spoke the Lord. (Genesis 18) 😉

    • Chris Frait says:

      I’m with you, Oliver. Never again will I ever buy anything Italian or do business with them in any capacity. Personally, I wouldn’t mind seeing America simply break off diplomatic relations with them altogeather. We don’t need them. They never really were our friends or allies. As an American, I am also increasingly convinced that our future lies with the rising economic and military powers of Asia, not Europe. We need to turn our attention westwards across the Pacific to new horizons. The 21st century will be the Pacific century.

    • GT says:

      Common you guys, enough with the anti Italy stuff. Don’t forget that the biggest anti Amanda hate group PMF is located in her own neighborhood in West Seattle. I suspect Amanda would love to see Italy outside of a prison cell, and everyone should, it is wonderful. Seriously, there are more hate people living right here then over there.

      • Chris Frait says:

        Sorry, I don’t think so. This is a pattern of Italian behavior that precedes the Amanda Knox case. Italy has become increasingly anti-American over the last several decades with reports of hostility coming in from returning American servicemen, tourists, businessmen, etc. who have been to that country and reported different accounts of hostile acts and attitudes towards them and America in general. Italians themselves have been very brazen in their anti-American attitude on a number of blogs both before, during, and after the Amanda Knox case, for reasons that have little or nothing to do with Amanda Knox. I have actually done my homework on this and seen many of their comments for myself. The bottom line is Italy is making large numbers of Americans into enemies through their own actions. I am a staunch American patriot. I will defend other Americans against all enemies, foreign and domestic, to my dying breath. As far as I am concerned, Italy is DEFINITELY NOT our friend or ally and the time has come to dispense with our relationship with it. We don’t need them and shouldn’t continue to give them aid of any kind. We have real friends in the world who deserve our support much more.

        • GT says:

          That anti Italy attitude is sure to help these kids. You did your research? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavalese_cable_car_disaster_(1998) John McCain is also an American patriot. He visited Egypt and met with the Muslim Brotherhood, encouraged them to organize and vote. And didn’t that turn out well?

          • Chris Frait says:

            Being nice to your enemies will not make them love you. It will make them more contemptuous of you then ever and much more aggressive. The only way to deal with evil people (and often evil nations) is with denial and brute force. It is all they understand. That would seem to be John McCain’s mistake too incidentally.

    • Thor Klamet says:

      I’ve thought about that too: Should I keep buying Italian olive oil for instance. But it’s a tough question. Italians are victims of their own legal system as much as Knox is. And we have plenty of troubles here. Todd Willingham was murdered by the state of Texas based on what was essentially tea leaf reading. Earl Washington confessed to giving Eve an apple and anything else he was asked about and was lucky to be released after 17 years.

      It may be true that a majority of Italians believe in the Knox-Sollecito fairy tale. I have friends who believe that yogis in India can levitate but that particular doesn’t actually hurt anyone. Still, I’m not sure I’m ready for a boycott of Italian products.

  77. Elias says:

    Lovely! Springtime in Seattle is amazing. (Although some years there is no springtime 😉

Leave a Reply

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