Wednesday, October 05, 2011

Nancy Grace’s “Miscarriage Of Justice” Observation Goes Viral, Google Says It’s On 38,000 Sites

Posted by Peter Quennell





Amanda Knox will be lucky if CNN’s popular legal commentator Nancy Grace doesn’t get on her case the way she still is on Casey Anthony’s.

Nancy Grace says there is NO innnocent explanation for Knox’s second written confession placing her at the house (with Patrick Lumumba) and including observations that only someone who really was there could have known.

We have noticed that time and again commentators have come out batting for Knox, read the evidence, and then gone quiet. Nancy Grace’s CNN colleague Jane Velex-Mitchell had swallowed the Kool Aid at one point, but now she is ambivalent and careful.

Here is Huffington Post Media’s version of what Nancy Grace said last night.

Nancy Grace issued a typically blunt verdict on Amanda Knox during a Monday interview.

The outspoken HLN host and fierce ‘Dancing with the Stars’ competitor declared her true feelings about Knox when she spoke to Access Hollywood following her waltz performance Monday night.

“I was very disturbed, because I think it is a huge miscarriage of justice,” Grace said. “I believe that while Amanda Knox did not wield the knife herself, I think that she was there, with her boyfriend, and that he did the deed, and that she egged him on. That’s what I think happened.”

In Knox’s final plea, she told an Italian appeals court that she was not present the evening her British roommate Meredith Kercher was sexually assaulted and brutally murdered in their shared apartment. Grace said she did not think Knox is telling the truth. “I believe her original statement to the police - that she was there in the home when her roommate was murdered was true,” Grace told Access Hollywood.

Social networks like Twitter and Facebook exploded with celebratory messages on Monday as the judge proclaimed Knox’s innocence, allowing the study abroad student to finally return home to Seattle, Washington after four years in an Italian prison.

Grace was not one of those supporters, saying that while she would love to believe Knox innocent, “I just happen to know the facts.” Grace was even harsher when asked if her show would compete with other networks to get the first Knox interview.

“I’m not trying to get Amanda Knox’s first interview because… my show does not pay for interviews…Second, I don’t think she’s going to tell the truth anyway, so what’s the point?” Grace responded.

THAT will get the noses of thousands of new followers firmly into the REAL evidence. Not all that made-up stuff. Other legal commentators may follow Nancy Grace’s lead, because she is the real pace-setter and power broker in that community.

The equally popular Fox News political and legal commentator Bill O’Reilly discussed the verdict on Monday night with Judge Andrew Napolitano, another prominent commentator. This is from the the summary on Bill O’Reilly’s website.

]Bill O’Reilly] concurred that Amanda Knox likely knows what happened on the night British student Meredith Kercher was murdered; therefore, we shouldn’t really be happy with this outcome since a terrible crime is unsolved.

Pity that Judge Napolitano claimed that Amanda Knox was interrogated as a suspect for 56 hours without an attorney. That did NOT happen. She had an attorney present at all times. Someone please correct him. .




Comments

Is anyone going to be surprised if Knox does a pay-per-view lie detector test for several million.

Posted by jennifer on 10/05/11 at 06:35 PM | #

The truth will come out I’m sure of it. Then watch the fur fly. Steve Moore and his wife of questionable intelligence will have to eat their words. It would not surprise me given Knox’s supreme view of her own perceived self importance that she would laughingly admit that she had everyone fooled including her own parents. It would not surprise me at all if she is sent back to Italy for the second appeal. Nobody likes to be fooled. Of course she is sick. I can cry on demand too.

Posted by Grahame Rhodes on 10/05/11 at 06:54 PM | #

This is really great news.  I do believe the tide will turn but at the moment, it’s still a trickle. 

By the way, are you aware of the request by Stephanie Kercher, through a family friend, to use the photo lower right on my post at my place [sorry - have to give my url for this one:

http://nourishingobscurity.com/2011/10/05/meredith-anomalies-already-surfacing/ .

I’m sure if you’re a regular here, you’ve also been asked.

Posted by James Higham on 10/05/11 at 06:55 PM | #

Aghast at this:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2045504/Amanda-Knox-guilty-verdict-We-followed-conscience-says-appeal-judge.html

Posted by Tim on 10/05/11 at 07:11 PM | #

Hi Tim

Actually this could be a very good sign. He may already be worrying about Cassation. He seems defensive and to me not very coherent. On PMF they are exploring if he got it right in law and we know the jury did not get a repeat of some of the toughest evidence presented at trial.

Almost the minute he was appointed in what seemed to us mysterious circumstances, I was receiving taunting emails saying this will change everything. I read it as an attempt to spook us by suggesting a precooked deal. Very odd, those emails.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 10/05/11 at 07:22 PM | #

Hi Jennifer. “Is anyone going to be surprised if Knox does a pay-per-view lie detector test for several million. “

Yes I for one would be surprised. I dont think she’ll make any remarks unchaperoned.

I dont know how seriously they are taken but there are experts with machines who can do voice pattern analysis when people make claims on TV.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 10/05/11 at 07:25 PM | #

@Huffington Post, though I’d rather not argue with the lazy and the incoherent:

“Nancy Grace has every right to call this a miscarriage of justice. And all the bandwagon joiners who’re showing up now need to give their opinions on OJ Simpson and Casey Anthony as well. They WERE acquitted, weren’t they?”

Posted by Ergon on 10/05/11 at 07:28 PM | #

Good point Peter.  I was just looking at it from the perspective that something like evidence didn’t seem to have mattered to him, but I see what you mean.

Posted by Tim on 10/05/11 at 07:32 PM | #

Finally.

Posted by gramjan on 10/05/11 at 07:36 PM | #

“Almost the minute he was appointed in what seemed to us mysterious circumstances, I was receiving taunting emails saying this will change everything. I read it as an attempt to spook us by suggesting a precooked deal. Very odd, those emails.”

Do you recall a few of us questioned about Hellman and if he’d been bought?  At the time, I think Vivianna said no, not possible but there were clear anomalies with the man. I’d like to see the police investigate him.  If he’s squeaky clean, that might come out or else the investigation would abruptly cease.

Posted by James Higham on 10/05/11 at 07:49 PM | #

Can anyone help me? I remember seeing phone records relating to Amandas phone. There was a record of a first call to Edda Mellas on the morning after the murder. There was also reference to it in court transcripts. I was sure it was in the powerpoints, but I cannot find it.
Thanks

Posted by starsdad on 10/05/11 at 08:01 PM | #

This page help at all Starsdad?

http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/C344/

Posted by Tim on 10/05/11 at 08:04 PM | #

James, I may have easily been wrong, but we don’t exactly have the kind of information right now that would allow us to draw firm conclusions.  I don’t think it’s wise for any of us to publicly entertain conspiracy theories in the absence of hard evidence.  It is calumny and it makes us look like the people we criticize for propagating strange ideas they can’t support.

I’ve been careful about jumping to conclusions about Hellman because no one can say with absolute certainty what exactly he is doing right now.  We don’t know where he stood throughout the debate, whether he voted for conviction or acquittal, and whether he is speaking for himself or for the entire jury right now.  We’ll see the motivation report, which hopefully will allow us to understand more about their thought process.

More than one person has pointed out so far that judges who don’t agree with a particular verdict may do little to convince the rest of the world of its validity, including writing a cohesive motivation report.  For this reason, Hellman’s current stuttering might not indicate fishy business or a decision made on shaky grounds, but a desire to make things easier for the Cassazione.  Who knows? I don’t, and I could not argue either way because I have neither the legal knowledge nor any insider information.  I’m definitely open to revising any opinions as new information comes in, though.

Things I’ve been wondering about these past few days have included: were the lay jurors correctly guided? what was the role of personal feelings and impressions versus hard facts? how much doubt was involved in the verdict? shouldn’t “the truth constructed in the trial” always be very close to “the real truth”? (otherwise, what’s the point of a court of law?)

Posted by Vivianna on 10/05/11 at 08:37 PM | #

@Tim
Thanks Tim, the information I was after is on that page.

Posted by starsdad on 10/05/11 at 08:39 PM | #

Why couldn’t they have all come to this conclusion two weeks ago?

Posted by Spencer on 10/05/11 at 08:57 PM | #

Viviana, that’s why we have investigations - to resolve unsureness.  It has nothing to do with conspiracy theories.  PMF is looking at what Hellman did not present and that’s why I suggested investigating him.

Where there are no anomalies, then it follows normal procedure.  When a skewed verdict is given, ignoring much evidence, then it requires an investigation to clear up why.

We’ve already seen a judge say on grounds of conscience, a gutfeeling.  Meanwhile, large amounts of evidence were not being given weight.  Why?  By all means we must await his stated reasons but I’d also be quietly looking into the man in the meantime.

Posted by James Higham on 10/05/11 at 09:06 PM | #

Most of the comments I saw under Nancy Grace’s Huffington Post article were very against her point of view.  Many readers totally unaware of the other evidence (as it was never discussed in the media).  Most totally believe she was interrogated for either 16 or 56 hours straight without food or water or sleep. 

I do not understand why her slander case had to wait as that was part of the whole media campaign against the prosecutor.  I wish that story had been set straight before the appeal.

As far as I know there are transcripts of the interrogation.  I’m sure they have times and dates.  Although people would say they were fabricated too.  At least we could see what was asked and what she replied, as they could be translated into English.

Posted by believing on 10/05/11 at 09:18 PM | #

““I’m not trying to get Amanda Knox’s first interview because… my show does not pay for interviews…”

Nice one.

Posted by lauowolf on 10/05/11 at 09:47 PM | #

@Peter Quennell.

Judge Pratillo Hellmann was praised from the start by Knox supporters. It made me suspicious.

Raffaele Sollecito and his family didn’t show any emotion after being acquitted of murder. I find that odd.

If judge Hellmann had reasonable doubt, then why did he denied the prosecution’s request to test the DNA found on the knife by Conti and Vecchiotti? There is only one logical answer to this question and it isn’t pretty.

Posted by Nell on 10/05/11 at 09:47 PM | #

I see that most comments on Huff Post are personal rather than substantive.

Fact is Nancy Grace pulls in more viewers (regularly 2-3 million) than anyone else on CNN and HLN, more than anyone on MSNBC, and more than anyone except OReilly and one other over on Fox news. I doubt if she cares what a few semi-literates on Huff Post say about her.

And she got her observations about Knox onto 38,000 websites in 24 hours, many of which have no comments to detract from the message. Her main usefulness may be in driving many new people today to look at the real evidence.

On Huff Post some say she couldnt get it right because she doesnt speak Italian and wasnt in the court. But between PMF and TJMK we have way upward of 1000 pages now translated into English. Even Knox conspiracists come here to keep current.

The most key document of all is the huge Massei Report and that has been posted here in English on PMF and TJMK for some months. We also hear a lot through personal contacts and I guess Nancy Grace’s network would be way larger than ours.

She has put the meme about the suspect verdict out there, and out there that meme is going to stay.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 10/05/11 at 09:54 PM | #

She has a lot of haters apparently and she sure had courage to go against the tidal wave of support in American media. 

Is it a good idea to link to the translated Massei report on these articles or is that just a waste of time?

Another article I just read on CNN Justice had overwhelming critique of the appeal verdict.  I was surprised.  Complete opposite of the reaction to Nancy Grace.

Will you be updating us regularly on the Sollecito trial coming up soon?

Posted by believing on 10/05/11 at 10:08 PM | #

James, I actually asked the same question about investigations.  I was told that when they happen, they aren’t done openly and that they can take years.  I know exactly what you’re saying, but I don’t think they could do an open investigation without having even the smallest piece of concrete evidence.  The fact that a lot of people are disappointed with the verdict isn’t grounds for an investigation.

To be fair, if investigations were done every single time people didn’t like a verdict, judges would be constantly harassed. That could lead to verdicts skewed towards pleasing the public, and we don’t want to go there.

Please know that I’m not disagreeing with you and that I have some theories about what may have happened (some things I’ve changed my opinion about, but the core stays the same). If we went for a glass of milk, I’d tell you about them.  But I wouldn’t feel comfortable discussing them here because I have absolutely no proof and proof is a big thing for me.  Every time I saw FOA lies, I asked for proof, confident that I had evidence for my own assertions.  If I came out and said “this is what I think happened,” any reasonable person would ask me for proof and I would have none.  That’s why I generally advocate staying on track and working with known facts.

As an encouraging thought, several people mentioned that when something is amiss, spills happen, even though they may not happen immediately.  I know I’ll be watching for any sign of spills.

Posted by Vivianna on 10/05/11 at 10:09 PM | #

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2045336/Meredith-Kercher-crime-scene-Questions-answered.html

A good article on the Daily Mail.

Posted by believing on 10/05/11 at 10:14 PM | #

Whenever people say we mustn’t indulge in “conspiracy theory” I always agree with them wink but boy, does my “anomaly detector” go off!

Judge Hellmann telegraphed this verdict from day 1.

Posted by Ergon on 10/05/11 at 10:25 PM | #

There’s something I am confused about because I just reread the transcript of Amanda’s handwritten letter to the police, on November 6, 2007, and she states that they hit her on the head when she didn’t remember a fact correctly.

However the police claim no hitting took place.  I thought it was only at the trial that she claimed that they hit her and they said absolutely not.

So now am confused.  Like Amanda was.  Was she in fact abused at the police station in this way or not? And what proof is there either way?

Posted by believing on 10/05/11 at 10:39 PM | #

Total agree with these statements with Nancy Grace and Bill O’Reilly. I do believe she did it. Great Post Peter!

Posted by wandt on 10/05/11 at 11:02 PM | #

Funny how the media jumps on the controversial band wagon every time! When she was convicted, it was all about how that was wrong and now that she has been absolved, its all about how she is guilty! It really is a cruel world!

I sincerely hope that Rudy Guede finally tells Meredith’s family what happened that awful night. I also hope that the motivations report offers a clear explanation of the verdict against 40+ previous judges. Last of all I hope justice is served by the Supreme Court.

Posted by Giselle on 10/06/11 at 12:11 AM | #

I had corresponded with Machine just before the verdict and expressed my anxiety. I had a bad feeling, particularly after the judge gave a warning to the crowd not to gossip during the verdict reading, just before they began deliberating. After a disheartening Monday, to say the least, this Nancy Grace news is very uplifting—too bad she didn’t say this months ago. This is the first time I have heard any public figure truly voice their beliefs of guilt for Knox, except Ann Coulter…but this comes at a time when it is really not politically correct for anyone to speak out against Knox. HATS-OFF to Grace for having the gumption to stand up and make this statement. She even reiterated it after her dancing with the stars performance.

This story is far from over and is not going away any time soon…too many questions left unanswered, and frankly, they are unanswerable without admitting culpability. The pendulum of justice is about to swing back hard the other way very soon, and though Knox will not be headed to jail, public opinion here in the states will not favor her for long.

Posted by willsavive on 10/06/11 at 12:44 AM | #

I am curious, why are people not talking about extradition with much hope? Is it not still highly likely that AK and RS will be found guilty by the higher court and returned to prison?

Posted by carlos on 10/06/11 at 12:49 AM | #

Believing, in the website http://www.perugiamurderfile.org you will find transcripts (in english)and some audios of Amanda cross examination during trial. I read all of them one year ago. I like a lot when mignini told her: ok ok you have said they hit you, but I need to know more details, who, how, when etc. Brilliant! She did circles to answer it.

Posted by lulupr on 10/06/11 at 12:55 AM | #

Willsavive, Nancy Grace has talked about the case before, actually she was interviewed in The View and she said: AK evidently is involved. Also, she briefly mentioned the case a few times in her program and never showed support to AK.

Posted by lulupr on 10/06/11 at 01:00 AM | #

Carlos, the US has a poor record of extraditing its own citizens, although there are bilateral extradition treaties with over 100 countries.

If people want to read more, here is an article titled “Extradition To and From the United States: Overview of the Law and Recent Treaties” by Michael John Garcia and Charles Doyle.

And here is the US-Italy extradition treaty of October 13, 1983.

Posted by Vivianna on 10/06/11 at 02:29 AM | #

I don’t think they could do an open investigation without having even the smallest piece of concrete evidence ... That’s why I generally advocate staying on track and working with known facts.

Precisely.  Any investigator can tell you that you don’t state a conclusion first and then find evidence to support that.  You see an anomaly and in some cases, a crime or it’s brought to your attention and you first decide if it’s worth an investigation, then if so, you investigate it, going wherever the evidence leads.

That’s the method at my site and it makes enemies.  I might believe one thing and then change, as the evidence comes to indicate otherwise.  You have to go where the evidence leads.  It needs an open mind, Vivianna.

But an investigator does have to get off his backside, go out and look and delve and search, rather than sit back and do nothing, for fear of calumny.  It would be wrong to say oh well, everything’s fine, let’s close TJMK now because it’s all over.  If a working hypothesis, private, not public suggests itself, sufficient to investigate, then that investigation needs to take place, rather than not.

Sorry, Vivianna but there are serious anomalies in how this particular verdict was arrived at.  Nothing to do with “any verdict we dislike”.  In this case, there is a glaring case for investigation, especially in such a high profile trial.

So there needs to be a double-headed approach.  Firstly, the prosecution must wait for the 90 days plus consideration time.

At the same time, as someone wrote on another post, there are signs that an investigation is actually being launched, mid-appeal.  As part of that, all legitimate avenues would be explored - Hellman’s verdict record, his background, his connections to the Knox lawyers and various people in society and so on.  Legal and above board.

If it comes to nothing, it comes to nothing and in fact vindicates Hellman and prevents further speculation by other people.  He should be delighted that an investigation would exonerate him.

But to fail to do that invites all sorts of speculation and yes ... calumny. 

Once we start down the road of fear of investigating because of what we’ll find, that’s a downhill road for a society.  There needs to be initial reason, yes and there is in this case - a verdict which was so at odds with the evidence, most which wasn’t even considered - that I’d like to know on what basis an investigation would not actually take place.

Posted by James Higham on 10/06/11 at 03:02 AM | #

Latest:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/8809514/Amanda-Knox-judge-She-may-know-the-real-truth.html

The judge stressed in a television interview in Italy last night that the verdict handed down by the appeal court was a reflection of the “the truth that was created in the trial.”

“But the real truth could be different,” he said, adding: “They (Miss Knox and co-accused Raffaele Sollecito) could also be responsible, but the proof isn’t there.”

Then why was the second option not taken - insufficient evidence?

Posted by James Higham on 10/06/11 at 03:35 AM | #

Hi Peter,

Good photo of Nancy Grace atop a welcome report. She’s not one to tangle with & you can see it in her face.

It’s the old Yin-Yang at work. Just when one of these eternal principles is at its maximum a tiny seed of its opposite appears…

But can this abortion of an appeals trial be remedied?  Not just in theory but in fact: trials cost.

What’s missing in the popular condemnation of the Italian police & the prosecutors is existential grasp.  Exactly that is absent from our two miscalled experts (in fact, professors) from Rome.  (Question: in what other sphere does one become an expert without so much as an apprenticeship?—or in my ignorance do I blunder here: these two were recruited from the field?)

Police had two murderers right under their noses. So then, did the murderers escape?  Intuitively, one policeman selected the very knife discovered in Sollecito’s kitchen drawer. Well then, what were the findings of the DNA?—with low copy number duly & conscientiously reported by Dr Stephanoni. And this supported by Amanda’s wicked little fantasy of Raffaele’s having possibly put the handle of that worrisome knife in her hand while she slept, to get the fingerprints!  We may note in passing her implicit fingering of Raffaele in this claim: Raffaele who also supports the knife-as-evidence by concocting a tale about his accidentally pricking Meredith as he was preparing food.

That adds up (I use this one example) to a perfect case for the knife if one views the matter in context using an existential standard—what, literally, is possible & reasonable under those conditions.  And “conditions” are everywhere, are always, are “conditioning.”

When those jerks of professors invoke the hygiene of a hospital surgery to condemn the methods of police (knife retrieval) & experienced expert (Dr Stephanoni) & then go on like a pair of fools to call for the dismissal of all other forensic evidence—when this is the case, I say, we see them for what they are & have done.)

Amanda—speaking again of faces—has so often presented an attractive appearance (along with many a suspicious look) that I am surprised by my growing revulsion at photographs of her weeping appearances.  I cannot condemn the abortion of an appeals trial too strongly in defiance of all evidence.

And I say this while conceding: had that very trial & that very judge declared Amanda guilty (as we surely know she is, on much evidence) & declared that her punishment in view of youth would be accepted as time served & then let her go, I would myself have not the least quarrel with such a result.  It is the lie which is hateful, the crookedness, the corruption.  And a judge’s betrayal of his high task.

Posted by Ernest Werner on 10/06/11 at 03:58 AM | #

@Vivianna

I am much impressed by this most recent contribution 1:29 am—as well as with so much else you have given.

Posted by Ernest Werner on 10/06/11 at 04:03 AM | #

James said: “There are serious anomalies in how this particular verdict was arrived at.”

Our weakness at this point lies in the fact that we have no idea of how they reached this decision.  We still don’t know if it was a 530.1 or 530.2 (based on Popper’s translation of tonights Porta a Porta, Maori seemed to think it was a 530.1). Once the motivation report comes out (it’s anticipated to be rather short this time), we’ll have an idea of how they approached this and the lawyers on board will undoubtedly dissect it for us.  At that point, we’ll be able to tell if there are indeed anomalies as we suspect.

Anomalies are exactly what the Supreme Court will be looking for, since this last appeal is basically a procedural investigation.  If the decision is overturned or a retrial is requested, there might be a legal basis for an investigation as well.

I was not suggesting that we shouldn’t ask questions, but, thinking in legal terms, you need a solid reason to ask for an investigation.  Right now, without a motivation report, all we have is a suspicion, but the Supreme Court might provide a tangible reason to look more deeply into the personal affairs of both judges and lay jurors. 

My impression is that Mignini feels strong responsibility towards the Kercher family and that he won’t let this go without a fight.

Posted by Vivianna on 10/06/11 at 04:09 AM | #

Ernest, you might find this interesting.

Unfortunately, none of the links on Italian Wikipedia can be viewed thanks to the Wiretapping Law (aka Gag Order Law) being currently debated in Italy.  Here’sthe sad announcement.

I don’t think anyone is surprised that the Ghira page is hidden.

Posted by Vivianna on 10/06/11 at 04:46 AM | #

Barbie’s tweet say it all - Judge in #amandaknox gives slew of invus, Corr d Sera p 22: “absolved but might be guilty” - “truth in the courtroom is not always real”

when even the American press is lumping you in with OJ and Casey Anthony…

Posted by mojo on 10/06/11 at 04:50 AM | #

PRIOR to the acquittal verdict, Nancy Grace said that she thought that Amanda knox would go free despite being guilty.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Sywz8wjuU4

In this interview (the Amanda Knox part begins at 2 min 10 sec) she cites American influence (politics?) as the reason for the acquittal.

Posted by starsdad on 10/06/11 at 04:55 AM | #

Well said Ernest.

Posted by Ann-Marie on 10/06/11 at 05:02 AM | #

Posted by James Higham on 10/06/11 at 02:02 AM   “At the same time, as someone wrote on another post, there are signs that an investigation is actually being launched, mid-appeal.  As part of that, all legitimate avenues would be explored - Hellman’s verdict record, his background, his connections to the Knox lawyers and various people in society and so on.  Legal and above board.”

It was also rumoured that an investigation would be started to investigate Conti and Vecchiotti. Never heard of it again. Where do these rumours come from? Or they are being investigated or they are not. There is nothing that suggests any investigation has been started regarding the independent experts or the judge. Correct me if I am wrong.

Posted by Nell on 10/06/11 at 05:05 AM | #

I would be very surprised if Conti and Vecchiotti end up being investigated.  A reassessment of their report or a new independent expert report might be feasible, though, and might be the best we could hope for.

Posted by Vivianna on 10/06/11 at 05:16 AM | #

I concur with the last two points that there is unlikely to be anything official - it was mentioned at TJMK, that was all. 

Also, I think we’re a bit cross purposes here in our definitions.  Vivianna is thinking formally, as in An Investigation, An Inquiry, whereas I was thinking two ways - one, the formal awaiting of the statement 90 days from now but unofficially, Hellman being quietly looked into by the authorities, which I’m sure would be happening anyway, if only to prepare for the next appeal. 

And there are good grounds for that.  Vivianna thinks there are not.  Fine - settle it with investigation [small i].

Posted by James Higham on 10/06/11 at 05:24 AM | #

Seems Hellman seems to have changed his tune about 48 hours too late. 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/oct/06/amanda-knox-judge-responsible?newsfeed=true

If Know is convicted at the third trial in her absence because they retest the knife using new techniques I will scream. She may not be extradited but I wouldn’t like to try to get back into Europe with an unspent murder conviction hanging over me. *hopes for Interpol to issue an arrest warrent*  Knox may not serve time but the Kerchers can be assured there will be no more stopovers at Heathrow, Berlin or anywhere else in the EU.

Also Steph Kercher has started a twitter campaign for Meredith.  If you’re on Twitter, search for #meredithkercher for more info

Posted by daisysteiner on 10/06/11 at 07:48 AM | #

I’m having an almighty battle at this point with a Knox DNA “expert” and have extracted the specific conversation from all the others and am putting it now on a separate site to mine.  I seriously don’t need people coming to my site this way but I do need someone to review this:

http://archive-other-nour-obscur.blogspot.com/2011/10/dna-issue.html

... to tell me if I am on the right track or not.  If not, I have to correct it.  It is drawn from here and PMF almost verbatim but with grammatical smoothing out by me.

Posted by James Higham on 10/06/11 at 09:17 AM | #

Rudy Guede: “I am the only one who pays. Amanda at home like a star”

http://www.unita.it/italia/rudy-guede-sono-l-unico-a-pagare-br-amanda-a-casa-da-star-1.339083

Posted by ncountryside on 10/06/11 at 09:23 AM | #

@ncountryside

Again we are grateful for the Italian (as for the poetry, the Law, the insights…)

Bearing in mind that Rudy Guede sank to the level of a stupid rapist & then lied about his crime, what he doesn’t understand is both simple & insurmountable.

He had no need to fear that his sentence would be increased if he had acknowledged his part in the murder as one of three, or as Present at the scene.  That sole admission (alas, withheld) would have solved the whole enigma.

For everyone, I mean, except family & relatives back home.

As in the Episcopal liturgy, it seems: we pay for what we do & we pay for what we don’t.

Posted by Ernest Werner on 10/06/11 at 10:07 AM | #

Guede speaks ! - and he is clearly riled at Amanda’s star status.

Will he finally speak up and tell the truth of the events of that fatal evening ?

Posted by gabster1971 on 10/06/11 at 10:16 AM | #

Amanda picchiata dalla polizia
ma anche lei ha fatto degli errori

Interview with Curt Knox.

La Republica

Posted by Miriam on 10/06/11 at 10:22 AM | #

@Ernest Werner, Guede has nothing to gain now, and might well be scared to say anything more, given the obvious judicial tampering.
But if there was a person that might well blow the case open, it would be him. I believe he’ll speak up soon.

Posted by Ergon on 10/06/11 at 10:46 AM | #

The problem with Rudy G is that he was fighting with Amanda K over who would change more their versions. And I think he won or tied with her.

We can deny that although he decide to speak there will be doubts if every word is true. Reasonable doubt is a little bit subjective. If the judge and jurors thought there was reas doubt, how can we challenge that?

I will review Massei R again, because somebody pointed out that Massei at some point said something like: maybe there"s no reason the 3 of them meet that night but if forensics says that they were there, they were there.

I am just wondering if that point Hellman will use as an argument for acquittal.

Posted by lulupr on 10/06/11 at 11:34 AM | #

WHAT is it about the USA?  Were AK to be ultimately declared guilty of this heinous deed WHY would they not extradite her?  WHY is it that every other country accedes to extradition requests from the USA - a certain UK computer geek springs to mind - several in fact - ?  Why wouldn’t the USA authorities agree to extradite upon being presented with the facts of the case?  In their own country such proven facts would lead directly to the gurney in the death chamber. 

I cannot understand why I am reading in news reports that the USA would be unlikely to extradite Amanda Knox in the event of her being declared guilty of the murder of Meredith Kercher.

That said, Italy has muddled the case up for itself.  Freeing her so unequivocally and allowing her to go home will make it very difficult for them to turn round and say that they had got it wrong and that she must come back to prison.  That really is ridiculous.

On another point, I read that the final appeal is mainly based on ‘procedure’ and ‘technicalities’ with the implication that this would not apply in this case.

Well, I would like to know exactly why the following would not count as procedure:

1.  The full bank of evidence so clearly detailed and explained after the first trial was not aired or considered at the appeal.

2.  The appeals judge rejected the prosecution request to use the latest technology to re-test the knife and bra DNA.

3.  The appeals judge has given contradictory statements to the media about the reasons why they acquitted.

4.  The appeals judge has publicly stated that part of the decision was based on the fact that AK’s family had been through a lot supporting her and that he believed some people wanted to keep her in prison because she is American.

5.  The appeals judge had no previous experience of high profile criminal trials but is a ‘business’ judge.

Aren’t these technicalities in the context of the practice of the law?

Of course, I believe that were Italy to request AK’s extradition a most unholy row of epic proportions would ensue and she likely would end up wriggling out of it or else Italy would not have the resources, the energy or the stomach to pursue it.

In the meantime there is much talk of AK reaping millions for her story.  Well, I wonder how this ‘well brought up girl’ will be able to reconcile the fame and riches with the knowledge deep down within her being of the truth on which it is really based - the barbaric slaying of a beautiful young woman.  This will be a pact with the devil himself.

As someone - some people - has already suggested, the truth will always emerge when you least expect it.  Truth has a way of doing this appearance act shedding light into the darkness.  I see Amanda unravelling at some point in time as she tries to live up to the expectations of her adoring entourage and the rest of America with this blackness in her heart.  The cracks will begin to show at some point.

The image of Meredith’s beloved shocked and devastated mother and siblings sitting next to the faithful and righteously angry and outraged Maresca at the press conference will be forever etched on my memory.

An image of violated trust and of utter betrayal.

This is a real tale of hypocrisy, power and evil at the expense of innocence and beauty.  WHERE are the values that the western world countries are based upon?

I hear what you say, Vivianne, but I cannot concur. 

Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.

Posted by thundering on 10/06/11 at 12:00 PM | #

Hi Thundering.

All those legal technicalities seem appropriate to consideration by Cassation. Remember it can only take ONE for Cassation to order a retrial at the appeal level. That’s all.

Cassation often favors the initial trial outcome and does not seem to like the frequent arrogance of the appeal courts at the first level with their “more educated” lay judges who do not get to see all the evidence again that was presented at trial.

If a retrial ir ordered this is the real nightmare decison for Knox and her entourage. Do Knox and the court flash mob move back for the trial or not?

If they dont move back the bambino factor is cancelled out. Knox could easily lose that time around.

Thereafter she could either head to prison voluntarily (which she well might) or fight extradition and have an Interpol warrant out against her ruling out ANY foreign travel for the rest of her life.

I doubt if the Knox people are resting easy yet.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 10/06/11 at 12:26 PM | #

This is a very fruitful thread (thanks all, great insights) and if okay we want Nancy Grace’s mug and message to grace our portal for a short while longer.

Next posts will be on the political angles and on whether Knox really stands to make very much. Also on Guede, and on what Judge Hellman’s latest take is. 

Tip: keep a very close eye on this on which we are going to be posting soon:  http://axcessnews.com/index.php/articles/show/id/22171

The wildly unpopular Mr Berlusconi is struggling with the Italian economy right now. Any heat off of him and his party (which is also Rocco Girlanda’s party) can only help.

Mr Berlusconi personally is feeling 4 kinds of heat from the justice system in the form of 4 trials coming up in Milan.

And his party will be the very big loser if the national investigations entrusted to PERUGIA PROSECUTORS into 2006 winter Olympics and 2010 earthquake reconstruction financial shenanigans sail on without a shot across their bows.

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/how_tough_are_perugias_prosecutors_well_they_sure_are_shaking_italys/

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/perugia_prosecutors_in_italian_news_daily_for_formidable_investigation/

Rocco Girlanda is now running a campaign in the Italian parliament to eliminate entirely the annual police budget (up in the many millions of Euros) for wiretapping.

Does this help to connect any dots?

Posted by Peter Quennell on 10/06/11 at 01:09 PM | #

Nobody’s really talking about it, but Knox’s acquittal came on 16 yrs to the day that O.J. Simpson was acquitted! http://bit.ly/omsWJa

Posted by willsavive on 10/06/11 at 01:49 PM | #

Giselle wished: “I sincerely hope that Rudy Guede finally tells Meredith’s family what happened that awful night.”

If Rudy does want to tell all, I hope to God they get him in a room with his own lawyer(s) (so no one can say it was coerced), several neutral witnesses (the criminal equivalent of notary publics, whatever they’re called), and a good video camera.

I’m afraid that if Rudy tells the truth, after he does, his life might not be worth too much. That beating that took place in prison may have been for the purpose of driving that home to him.

That’s why I doubt he ever will. Hope springs eternal, however. He owes it to Meredith.

Posted by Earthling on 10/06/11 at 02:44 PM | #

@will savive:

Actually, the coincidence does not stop there: Knox and OJ also share the same birthday, July 9. PMF posters noted this several years ago. Of course, back then we did not know they would be acquitted on the same day.

Posted by Skeptical Bystander on 10/06/11 at 03:30 PM | #

P.S. They are 40 years apart to the day: OJ was born in 1947 and Knox in 1987.

Posted by Skeptical Bystander on 10/06/11 at 03:31 PM | #

I agree @Earthling, the conditions for a full disclosure of the truth by Rudy are not there yet. There has to be something in it for him other then to get Amanda and Raf back in jail. I hear he can be out in 5 years with good behavior. This is really not a long time.

Since he has shown himself to be a particularly selfish human being disclosure of the real facts will only take place if there is a substantial reduction in the sentence in it for him, but even then I think he will hesitate to do so for two reasons.

1) telling the truth will be difficult because it would probably mean him confessing to some pretty awful stuff. He would be get an early release but would have a worse reputation than he already has. The court would not be satisfied with him not owning up to his role so he would have to really come clean about what he did. Otherwise nobody would believe his statements anyway. I don’t see this happening.

2) Rudy is really hoping for a new trail and an acquittal for himself. So he will wait until he has no more options. For now he seems to have new options which means that he will not be saying anything anytime soon.

I would hope he will privately let the Kerchers know what happened to their daughter but somehow I don’t think rudy has a lot of empathy for others.

Posted by carl on 10/06/11 at 03:36 PM | #

Good points, carl.

Posted by Earthling on 10/06/11 at 05:49 PM | #

Knox’s happiness must be greatly reduced by the news that Guede is upset with her. She’s got to be fearing what he might say, as he’s a loose cannon. Part of me hopes she does feel this fear now.  (Though I am ashamed to think so genuinely ill of someone).

Then I’m concerned that this growing fear emotion might give rise to particular actions. Actions that come from a dark place. Her favourite place, a place she’s been to before and would return to again if circumstances dictate.

Then I’m feeling that she can’t be that worried, she must know that if ALL the evidence can be swept aside from her trial so easily, then surely it can with Guede’s as well, it was all the same crime scene, all the same handling and contamination. No, Guede will hold his tongue and his entire case will be thrown out of court as well. Failing that, he’s only got maybe 5 more years left to serve and he wouldn’t want to risk that, so he won’t talk.

Then I’m thinking maybe AK has other fears regarding Guede . Not, what he might say, but what he might do, when he gets out, to her. She and RS did a mighty fine job pinning it all on the black man. She could fear his anger over that, seems pretty reasonable fear to have to me, it’s a pretty shitty thing to do to someone, especially when you get off scott-free and with a small fortune to boot.

And then I started to worry about what these combined fears might cause to occur in her. What might grow, out of control, and then burst out of her and on to some sweet, innocent, intelligent, totally gorgeous Seattle resident. 

Needless to say I’m confused, and have been for the last 3 days.

Utterly.

Posted by Spencer on 10/06/11 at 07:56 PM | #

Hey folks.  I wanted to clarify that I was not outright rejecting the possibility of very fishy business, but simply didn’t feel comfortable expounding on this in the absence of proof.  The fact that we consider the verdict disconnected from the evidence does not constitute proof per se - simply a starting point for some uncomfortable questions.  Some dots need to be connected and some connections fleshed out before we can address this subject.  I’ve been revising my own theories since the day of the verdict as new information came in and what may have happened is probably nowhere near as dire as what I had envisioned.  That’s why I think we should stick to known facts and censor ourselves somewhat until we know more. 

********************************************

I posted two good extradition links above.  There are no good reasons why Amanda would not be extradited, except for the wild card reason.  The treaty is bilateral; murder is a crime in both states; she would not have to fear capital punishment, torture, or inhumane treatment (videos from Capanne are proof); she would not be prosecuted for other crimes; her crime would not be a political one, etc.  However, the wild card is the fact that any country can refuse the extradition of one of its citizens “just because.”  There is a clause in the bilateral treaty which says that nationality should not play a role in the decision, but in reality things are not done that way.  Aliens and immigrants get extradited a lot more frequently than citizens.  This is why all sources say that an extradition is unlikely - not because the treaty wouldn’t support it, but because the home country has the option to decline and the US has a history of doing so.

Posted by Vivianna on 10/06/11 at 08:49 PM | #

Forgot to add that if extradition is denied, the home country has the option to enforce the sentence locally.  However, I’m doubtful that this would happen.  If it comes to this, I wonder how WA state prisons compare to Capanne, and if they offer biscuits, hugs, and rock concerts.

Posted by Vivianna on 10/06/11 at 08:54 PM | #

I just went through some Italian newspapers and culled two stories that you might find interesting:

La Stampa and La Repubblica both ran an interview with Curt Knox, in which he says, among other things, that Amanda was beaten and intimidated by the police, that her conviction was political (complete with mentions of a money trail), that she didn’t lie when she accused Lumumba (seriously? even Hellman thinks she did), etc.

La Stampa also includes this little gem:

“Un’amica di famiglia, Susan Rosales, spiega che ci sono anche ragioni di sicurezza: «Qui a Seattle esiste il gruppo dei “guilters”, che la considerano colpevole e hanno molestato molti suoi difensori».”

A friend of the family, Susan Rosales, explains that there are also safety reasons [for Amanda’s hideout]: “Here in Seattle there is a group of ‘guilters,’ who considered her guilty and have harassed many of her defenders.

I would like both La Stampa and Ms. Rosales to give concrete examples of such harassment incidents, including dates, names, events, and police reports filed.  As it happens, TJMK and PMF posters, along with journalists who reported neutrally on this case can produce concrete evidence of FOA harassment, including death threats directed at journalists.

Posted by Vivianna on 10/06/11 at 09:20 PM | #

Earthling “Hope springs eternal”

It truly does. I keep justice for Meredith in my prayers, now more than ever. I believe the universe has it’s own justice system too - karma (as mentioned before by one poster, sorry the name escapes me).

Karma is as beautiful as your own actions. I always pray only for karma for Knox and co. I have never been able to think that I hope she stays in prison (having experienced dodgy police work myself), but I have always prayed that karma find her.

Posted by Giselle on 10/06/11 at 09:32 PM | #

Nancy Grace is not someone who I want on my side, but at least she stands up for her view.

I have to admit that I am not as strong….I am very confident i my belief and opinion, but I simply don’t have the energy to have the fights anymore. FOA harassment has ruinened any attempt at a remotely civil discussion on news sites like cnn and Huffington Post(Which was by far the worst), and I simply don’t have the energy to fight my way through all the BS they are spreading. It like fighting a pillow.

This case is terrible for the sense of justice, but its almost worse that most of the world seems to be brainwashed.

Posted by Admire on 10/06/11 at 11:47 PM | #

One of the enduring myths of the FOA is that involving an alleged group of “guilters”, and I was fully expecting this fantasy to be put forth as a reason for going into hiding. There is no such group as far as I am aware, though it is true that there are many in Seattle who think Knox was involved in Meredith’s murder. Many of us believe that this latest verdict raises loads of questions.

Answering these questions should be a simple matter. Instead, we have a People spread and a CBS special coming up. More smoke and mirrors.

Posted by Skeptical Bystander on 10/07/11 at 12:06 AM | #

A people spread? Really? Im puking already

Posted by Admire on 10/07/11 at 12:16 AM | #

P.S. I also recall Amanda Knox stating in her final plea that she was not afraid of the truth and would not run from it. The truth is that there is no group in Seattle or elsewhere out to “get” her. But there are lots of people who will remain convinced of her involvement until a number of serious questions have been answered. A good start would be the questions Barbie Nadeau raised in her Daily Beast article published today. If Knox does not want to address these questions, no one will force her to do so. But she will probably feel like she needs to hide until this happens, and THAT is certainly not the fault of a mythical group of beasts been branded as guilters.

Posted by Skeptical Bystander on 10/07/11 at 12:25 AM | #

I read RG lawyer said a retrial is possible but althought he could be aquitted also he can get life in prison. Needless to say, I don’t think Rudy will take this chance. If I am his lawyer I would not recommend to him fight back unless he is completely innocense, and this is not th case.

My guess is prosecutors will try to persuade him to talk in a way or other. Or a news chain will offer him a lot of money to speak and he will accept so he has money when he get out.

Posted by lulupr on 10/07/11 at 12:39 AM | #

@ Admire

I noticed similar aggressive attacks by Knox Supporters on the Independent website - anyone trying to express their opinion of guilt for AK and RS was basically shot down in flames by Knox supporters.

It was noticeable that hardly any of the Knox supporters could express their opinion on the state of affairs in a decent manner. It always ended with a personal attack on the other poster and a sign off with something like “you’re an idiot”.

They are just showing themselves up as bullies and people of low intelligence - which was my impression everytime I saw pictures of the Knox clan during the court case.

Knox is free for now - but what kind of life has she boxed herself into ? She will be surrounded by people as mentioned above, has to keep her secret for life, every day of her life now has to be another performance.

Posted by gabster1971 on 10/07/11 at 02:40 AM | #

Re Guede.  He has admitted to being at the crime scene and he comes across as somewhat reasonable in some respects. 

If AK and RS are totally inncoent and were not even at the cottage on the night in question then why does he not at the very least speak up and state they were not there.  That would only be fair. 

I don’t really believe that he is interested in falsely pinning the blame - or allowing the blame to be falsely pinned - on innocent others.

Posted by thundering on 10/07/11 at 02:47 AM | #

Lulupr,

In theory Rudy has a strong case. With Knox and Sollecito acquitted, his alibi almost seems plausible. But who wants to put their life in the hands of the Italian justice system at this point. So I tend to agree he will wait it out and then try to sell his story.

Also, as I recall, Judge Hellmann was not the judge originally expected to take the case. I’m not sure if that would have made any difference since it sounds like it was a fairly unanimous decision but it is curious. Did the original judge balk at pressure to try the case a certain way, and so they brought in this semi-retired judge instead? I know this is conspiracy theory, but there is some basis for it because in hindsight the way the trial was conducted seems designed to guarantee an acquittal.

Posted by brmull on 10/07/11 at 02:51 AM | #

Several judges declined this case.  I think the explanation is simple - regardless of the verdict, someone would have criticized the decision and called them corrupt. They also knew that this trial would be extensively covered and perhaps had no interest in becoming global public figures.

Posted by Vivianna on 10/07/11 at 03:11 AM | #

as an aside with respect to discussion of extradition, i would add that ira einhorn was eventually extradited from france to the us for the brutal murder of holly maddux—ted simon was his lawyer. always thought simon was brought in to make sure that amanda made it to the US - of course, this was long before an acquittal was on the horizon.

Posted by mojo on 10/07/11 at 03:17 AM | #

@Peter Quennell

What is the bambino factor?

Posted by Nell on 10/07/11 at 03:41 AM | #

ah yes, the unanswered questions from the Daily Beast

Knox Case’s Unsolved Mysteries

Posted by mojo on 10/07/11 at 07:36 AM | #

@ thundering

And if AK and RS are totally innocent and not in the cottage, why does Guede even try to implicate them at all ?

We can’t be exactly sure of the degree of social contact between the 3 (if any), but if he hardly knew them why would he decide to frame them ?

And if he is framing them (they are innocent in this scenario), why does he stage a break in in Filomena’s room to make it appear Knox broke into her own flat via Filomena’s window ?

Its preposterous…..

Posted by gabster1971 on 10/07/11 at 12:29 PM | #

@gabster1971

It also begs the question why he didn’t directly accuse them if he thought implicating them would be favourable for him?

We all know why, because all three of them were there. That’s why nobody could really speak out. The first one who was to accuse another, would have to fear to be revealed as well.

The fact that none of them has tried to get leniency by working with the authorities and revealing what they know shows that all three of them were equally involved.

Posted by Nell on 10/08/11 at 12:17 AM | #

Hi Thundering,
  I am perfectly agree withy you.
  This trial was everything except a true trial. It was a farse.There is somenthing rotten in the state ofDenmark.But Also in the state of Italy,in the state of USA ...

Posted by Matteo_65 on 11/21/11 at 10:02 AM | #


Make a comment

If you are reading this please log in to post a comment.

Smileys



Where next:

Click here to return to The Top Of The Front Page

Or to next entry US And UK Media: Make RS & AK Answer The HUNDREDS AND HUNDREDS Of Open Questions

Or to previous entry Andrea Vogt’s Interview With Meredith’s Family In The First Post