Amanda Knox free based on prosecutors messing up case

[Sarah Ibarruri]

... The stunning turnaround hinged on an independent review of DNA evidence that authorities said tied Knox and Sollecito to the crime. Kercher, 21, was found dead in her room, her throat slashed and her body bearing more than 40 stab wounds and signs of sexual assault. The DNA review found that the evidence was severely compromised by sloppy police collection methods and subpar forensic testing, a devastating conclusion that prosecutors could not successfully counter.

Two hours after the verdict was read and beamed around the world, Knox was set free, leaving behind the cell where she has spent most of her adult life. Both she and Sollecito had more than 20 years left to serve under sentences handed down upon their conviction in 2009.

But the acquittals are unlikely to quell public debate, especially among Italians who feel their judicial system has been smeared by the American media and others who accuse the authorities in Perugia of railroading Knox in a staggering miscarriage of justice...

Whole article here: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-italy-amanda-knox-20111004,0,4819867.story

[teddy51]

1. So what really is the truth here? Hmmmmm I never really followed the case

but this doesn't sound very good. Neck slashed, stabbed 40 times and raped. Yikes, that's brutal.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

3. Plus she lied about an innocent man, who got sent to jail

And lots more.

She was found innocent in the first go-round. On appeal, the case was thrown out.

[Nevernose]

9. She was coerced to confess

...in a language she didn't understand fluently. The Rolling Stone article -- like most Rolling Stone articles -- is excellent. That's not then same thing as "lying about an innocent man.". The police could've gotten Gandhi to have confesed to Pearl Harbor.

[trueblue2007]

10. Amanda Knox free based on SHE WAS INNOCENT OR ANY CRIME !!!!!!

[Auntie Bush]

4. The killer is already doing time for the crime. (forget his name)

[Honeycombe8]

14. This is true. Some guy's DNA was found all over the place...and he was

found and arrested and convicted. My understanding is that the police went BACK to the crime scene over a month after initial investigation to look for evidence linking Knox & her boyfriend. Of course, any idiot would know that a crime scene wouldn't be pure any longer after that length of time. The DNA they did find was minimal, and inconclusive, and guess what? Knox lived there! She was also the first one to go into the bloody apartment and discover something was wrong.

As I recall, the guy that was convicted didn't know Knox or her boyfriend; there was no connection between them.

[Auntie Bush]

21. And I think he only got 16 years. That was 4 years ago and with good behavior

he'll probably be out and free to kill again in about 6 years. :scared:

[midnight]

2. What is amazing is that the prosecutors had enough shame to

realize the staggering miscarriage of justice... That, in itself, is the miracle... Everyday justice is trampled on by criminal prosecutors that destroy evidence and then say it wasn't excupatory...

[Sarah Ibarruri]

5. There are guilty people running free and innocents in jail because someone botched up something

In this case, she wasn't found innocent. The case was thrown out because it was botched. Doesn't mean she was innocent. Only that the case was botched.

[Ikonoklast]

13. Here's a little something to help you understand.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exoneration

Yes, in actual fact, she WAS found inoocent of all charges.

The case wasn't 'thrown out on a technicality', the previous verdict was overturned due to the lack of any credible evidence against her.

She is guilty of nothing.

[DJ13]

6. The prosecutors were actually petitioning the court to increase her sentence

I believe it was a jury that let her go free.

[yardwork]

7. The prosecution case wasn't botched, it was a frame-up from the beginning.

There was never any convincing evidence that Amanda Knox had anything whatsoever to do with this murder. The obvious killer is in jail - he left his DNA everywhere at the murder scene. He got a reduced sentence because he said that Amanda and her boyfriend helped him commit the murder. All the evidence points to him having done it himself.

[Nye Bevan]

8. She was convicted based mainly on DNA evidence, which turned out to be compromised.

As the article you link to states, she has been "exonerated".

The actual murderer is already in prison.

[Honeycombe8]

15. I think the DNA evidence was also inconclusive; the important DNA...

results couldn't rule out Knox, but couldn't say it was her or her boyfriend. The convicted guy's DNA was all over the place, I think and was collected during the initial investigation and was conclusive. That's how they found him.

The other DNA was collected over a month later, when the cops went back to the crime scene to look for something to tie Knox & her boyfriend to the crime.

[Bloke 32]

11. The same is true for O.J. Simpson

The police and prosecution (in Los Angeles!) were absolutely bush-league.

[belcffub]

22. except he probably did it

[RZM]

23. The prosecution did make some major mistakes

And were thoroughly outclassed by the defense team, which was always several steps ahead of them. Of course that probably happens alot when you're talking about pitting public servants against the best defense lawyers that money can buy.

One example . . . both sides were generally happy with the composition of the jury once it was selected. Clearly the defense knew some things that the prosecution didn't.

[Bryn]

12. I know it sounds funny at first but read this

This guy wrote a book. Here's his blog from his link

"Amanda told the authorities that she returned to the cottage the morning after the murder to take a shower, she said she was alarmed because the front door was open. When she used the bathroom to take her shower, she noticed a very small streak of blood in the sink as well as a light stain on the bathmat. She wasn't overly concerned because it was a small amount of blood. Because the door had been left open, it added to Amanda's concern. After her shower, Amanda went to the other bathroom to use a hairdryer. She noticed that the toilet in that bathroom had been left unflushed. She also noticed that her flatmate Meredith's door was locked. Amanda decided to head back to Raffaele's to let him know what she had seen. Amanda and Raffaele returned to the cottage together and decided to call the police'.

<snip>

"The police found text messages on Amanda's phone to her boss, Patrick Lumumba. Patrick ran a bar where Amanda worked part-time. The police took a text message out of context. The text from Amanda to Patrick, "see you later" was taken literally by the investigators. In the US, this phrase, in the context that it was written, simply means goodbye. The police told Amanda the text meant that she planned on meeting Patrick on the night of the murder. The police also left out the second part of the message, "good night." When you put the phrase together, it explains the meaning even more clearly. Amanda had no intention of meeting Patrick that night. She was simply saying goodbye to Patrick in the text."

<snip>

"Amanda Knox was repeatedly questioned by police in the days following the murder. On November 5th and into the early hours of November 6th, 2007, Amanda endured a long aggressive interrogation. Amanda stated she had been hit repeatedly on the back of the head and called a stupid liar. She was told that she was going to prison for 30 years. She was told that they had proof that she was at the crime scene at the time of the murder. She was told that her boss, Patrick Lumumba was the man that attacked Meredith. She didn't give Patrick's name to the police. His name was suggested to her. She was told to imagine that he committed the crime."

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/CaseSummary.html

[Honeycombe8]

16. Interesting. And believable to me. But the article I read about her going to

the apartment indicated that the first call she made was to her boyfriend or a female friend (I forget which), from the apartment or outside the apartment in front. That friend/boyfriend said she/he would immediately come over. The next call she made was to her mother. Or maybe her mother was first. Then she called the police.

I can believe that. She didn't know what to think...I can imagine being young & finding my apartment that way & not knowing if I was being dramatic to think that something was very wrong. I would have wanted someone's opinion, or at least ask if I should call the police.

That's interesting about the "see you later." I guess it does matter when a defendant speaks a different language and/or is from another country. Communication is so different from country to country.

[Bryn]

19. I know she seemed to act weird at first

example: she and her Italian boyfriend went shopping for her "sexy underwear", but it turned out that she was stuck since she wasn't allowed back in her house to get her clothes since police roped off crime scene so they went shopping for her extra clothes, naturally they (reporters) twisted it into something else. I'd like to let her and her boyfriend off because from what I read they're more likely innocent. At first I did think she had something to do with it, but I was wrong. I don't believe it so now.

[Taverner]

17. Dude, there was no evidence

Yeah, maybe the cops fucked up but there was no usable evidence...

[Jayster84]

18. The prosecutor is guilty here.

Occam's Razor: The simplest solution is probably correct. The victim came home and surprised a known burglar while in the act. He assualted her and killed her. The police and prosecutor botch the investigation. Under duress Knox gives the police a name. (Someone who had an alibi) You might do this too if the police interogated you the way she was. They had already put the screws to Knox and her boyfriend when they caught the real killer on the run in Germany. He accuses the couple of being part of the crime in order to not go down on his own. He gets a reduced sentence for admitting to the crime, but saying he was only a participant. Read up, this case stunk from the beginning.

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Knox+case+myth+invented+cover+police+errors/5497852/story.html

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/Mignini.html

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/TheKnife.html

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/TheBraClasp.html

[bengalherder]

20. After reading 'Monster of Florence' I was already

sickened by the 'Satanist' angle that this prosecutor apparently applied to every major murder he came across.

She wasn't just charged with murder, she was charged with satanic sacrifice on this guy's say so.

She deserved to go free, even if it was just to mess up his day (although his days are pretty fucked up as he's JAILED now...).

[gratuitous]

24. And this is why we don't dare try the likes of bin Laden

We don't trust our justice system anywhere near the way we trust violence to produce a result we are pleased to call justice. Too many variables and too many unknowns involved with due process. Far more expedient to just execute someone and say that that constitutes justice. Of course, there has to be some advance groundwork to convince enough people that the person executed was really, really bad, but in a society such as ours with its deep and abiding faith in the power of violence, that's child's play.