Anti-American Bias in the Amanda Knox Case: Perspective of an American Lawyer in Italy
After writing my review of Murder in Italy by Candace Dempsey, I found I hadn’t scratched the surface of what I had to say about this case. Once I started writing, I ended up with way too much material for one post, so I’m spreading it out this week, which apparently will be Amanda Knox murder trial week here at Bleeding Espresso. Believe me, I’m not thrilled about it either, but I do want to get this perspective out there, so I ask that you please bear with me, and we’ll get back to Calabrian sunshine and cuisine next week.
Over the past couple years, many people have asked about my opinions, and I understand why: I am American, I have lived in Italy for seven years, and I am a lawyer. I’ve refrained from offering my opinion publicly as I simply don’t know what really happened in that house in Perugia in November of 2007.
While I may come from a somewhat unique perspective, I don’t know any more than anyone else, and it’s not my job to decide whether Amanda Knox, Raffaele Sollecito, and/or Rudy Guede played parts in Meredith Kercher’s death. Courts have heard the cases and decided, and we’ll soon be going through a similar process again. If you want speculation on “whodunit,” you can find it all over the Internet. Have at it.
Putting aside the “Did they do it?” questions, from where I’m sitting, there have been certain aspects of the case that have bothered me from the beginning; that is why I’m writing now. It should be understood, but I’ll say it anyway: what follows is MY perspective based on MY experiences as an American (Italian dual citizen) lawyer living in Italy. Your mileage may vary.
To me, there have been three major misconceptions about the trial on the part of the American media: the so-called anti-American bias in the Italian criminal justice system, the so-called media circus surrounding the trial, and the so-called conviction based on nothing. I’ll deal with each in turn, starting with:
The So-Called Anti-American Bias in the Italian Criminal Justice System
Let me start by saying I am disgusted with the way the American media has treated the Italian criminal justice system; if someone wants to bash the system, I have no problem with that *if* the person knows what s/he is talking about. If you don’t know the basics of the system let alone its ins and outs, it’s not only uninformed but also beyond disrespectful to (literally) shout about it on television news programs and rile up the masses, who probably know even less than the “journalists.”
From my experience — and as many fellow Americans and other foreigners living in Italy might agree — Americans here are often offered some of the best treatment of any foreigners in many aspects of society. I can’t and won’t speak for all Americans in Italy, but I have seen absolutely no underlying bias working against us; in fact, I would say it’s often quite the opposite. I lived here through most of the George W. Bush years, and even at the height of his unpopularity in Italy, Americans as a group weren’t hated — and that’s saying something, I think.
I’m having a hard time understanding why if Americans tend to be treated extra-well in everyday transactions, it would turn to animosity, even a witch hunt according to some, in a situation as serious as a criminal investigation — although let’s remember that Knox’s accusatory finger pointed at Congan native but long-time Perugia resident Patrick Lumumba had him arrested before he was even asked about an alibi, so they seemed to believe wholeheartedly in that American back then.
Put another way, I have no problem with the argument that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence (the judges and jury got it wrong) or with those who question the wisdom of putting Prosecutor Giuliano Mignini, who was going through his own prosecutorial misconduct trial (and was eventually convicted) in charge. Indeed, these are absolutely valid challanges. But implying or insisting that the entire Italian criminal justice system had it out for Knox *because* she is American is absurd.
Aside from personal observations, my mind keeps coming back to one question I can’t sufficiently answer, and I feel myself wanting to quote Denzel Washington’s line from Philadelphia, “Explain it to me like I’m a 4-year-old.” My question is this: “What would be in it for Italy to railroad Amanda Knox?” Millions of euros in tourism revenue lost per year because disgruntled Americans won’t visit and, taken to the extreme, the possibility that the most heavily armed country in the world wouldn’t come to its defense in a time of need?
OK, so maybe Mignini wouldn’t think on that grand a scale, but wouldn’t *anyone* throughout the entire government? I find it much more plausible that the Italian powers-that-be would find a way to make this go away if they saw a reason to do so. Remember Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi came back into office in early 2008, just before a new American President would be taking over; couldn’t it have been an opportunity to forge a relationship with a new White House buddy?
Granted, like most murder cases, this one isn’t technically a national matter, but let’s be honest: Italy has liked staying on America’s good side since World War II, and anyone who knows anything about Italy knows Berlusconi can do pretty much whatever he wants. If he wanted this to go away, it would.
So I’m left to wonder: if a young American college student (a sympathetic “victim” if there ever was one) has been falsely accused of murder, wouldn’t it actually be in the Italian government’s best interests to fix the thing? Make it go away? Play nicey-nice with one of the world’s so-called superpowers? Or, short of that, make damn sure she gets a fair trial?
To be clear: I’m not saying the Italian criminal justice system is flawless. I’m also not saying there may not have been other improper and/or unethical reasons Knox was pursued as a suspect; from my experiences and observations, I just don’t believe her American citizenship was one of them.
I also don’t believe the Italian government would sit on its collective hands and let an American girl get “railroaded” as so many have claimed. It just doesn’t make sense to me why they would do that. Aside from not wanting a miscarriage of justice on their hands (never looks good on a government), international scandals just don’t look very good either — and Italy is famous for the bella figura.
So maybe you’re thinking, “But part of the bella figura is actually solving a high-profile crime!” Indeed, but remember the police did have Guede’s DNA all over the crime scene, so his conviction wasn’t going to be difficult to obtain (and he’s even technically a foreigner although he spent most of his life in Italy). And let’s not forget there is also an Italian who has been convicted — on less evidence than there was on Knox IMHO. Anti-Italian bias?
Or one could say the bella figura aspect means that Italy wouldn’t want to make itself look bad by admitting it was wrong about Knox. Sure, that’s a possibility, but remember the police also made a huge scene of arresting Lumumba, but then had to release him two weeks later when his DNA didn’t show up at the scene and he had a solid alibi. Plus it seems it would be much more brutta to send someone to prison for murder and then get called on the international carpet, so to speak, by the U.S. Secretary of State or President on the issue — and they’d have to believe that would happen if it was a clear case of railroading, no?
Now, to be clear, none of this means I necessarily think Knox and Sollecito are guilty of the crimes they’ve been convicted of, but at the same time, I can’t easily explain away the fact that no one from a higher level of Italian government has stepped in at any point to question the arrests and convictions — this despite a highly publicized outrage campaign by Americans, including politicians, albeit not top-level. Secretary of State Clinton said just after the verdict that she’d be willing to talk to anyone with concerns about the case, but there’s been nothing else reported on that as far as I know. If anyone knows the status of Clinton’s review, please do share.
To me, all of the above suggests anti-American bias had nothing to do with this case and that there just may be something behind the conviction after all — such as the 400+ page document written by the court that explains its decision, which I’ll be discussing later in the week. Before we get there though, on Wednesday I’ll talk about another of my pet peeves about this case: the so-called media circus surrounding the trial. Hope you’ll be back for that.
Fellow Americans and foreigners in Italy as well as Italian natives, I’m especially interested in hearing your opinions and experiences, so please add your two beans! The same goes for everyone else too, of course. Please let’s try to remain civil and respectful. Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
[PHOTO CREDITS: Perugia Panorama by Renzo Ferrante on Flickr; Perugia by Chris Yunker on Flickr]
112 Beans of Wisdom to “Anti-American Bias in the Amanda Knox Case: Perspective of an American Lawyer in Italy”
« Older Comments Newer Comments »
Michelle Fabio is an American attorney-turned-freelance writer living in her family's ancestral village in Calabria, Italy and savoring simplicity one sip at a time.
Affiliates, Sponsors & Supporters
Nutella E-book for Sale
Recipes
I was under the impression that it was Italian law that all prisoners are HIV tested before placement in general population.
Michelle, can you shed any light on this? I think this is something the US would greatly benefit by as well.
I don’t know the answer to this, but if I find out, I will let you know! Thanks for reading and commenting
Harry writes:
“Rudy Guede was never found guilty of stealing stuff from a place where he climbed 15 feet into a similar window at another location.
Aren’t you embarrassed to have written so many factually incorrect statements?”
When police catch somebody red-handed and don’t do anything about it, then don’t be surprised when they don’t have a criminal record.
Maybe the Italian police should be embarrassed for not arresting him. It is undisputed that they caught him with the items stolen from the law office. He had just broken into a nursery school in Milan, armed with a knife no less.
Remember this because it is important. If the incompetent Italian police had done their job and taken Rudy Guede out of circulation in Milan 4 days prior to the murder, then Meredith would still be with us. When apprehended in Milan police had definitive evidence of his participation in two separate breaking and entering incidents. All they did was put him on a train back to Perugia where he could be somebody else’s problem. The owner of the nursery school stated that, “We all had the feeling that this was a dangerous person.”
Guede was convicted of receiving stolen property from a break in which someone climbed 15 feet up a building and went through a window similar to the one that was found at the kercher crime scene. There are no photographs that i have been able to find of the broken glass in the room. Amazing how the two crime scenes are so similar. One was just a simple burglary and the other had the same exact profile of the burglary except Kercher was in the apartment. How do you think they where able to match Guede’s fingerprint.
Chris,
You wrote:
“Guede was convicted of receiving stolen property from a break in which someone climbed 15 feet up a building and went through a window similar to the one that was found at the kercher crime scene.”
No, he wasn’t. Rudy Guede didn’t have any criminal convictions at the time of Meredith’s murder. You really need to get your facts straight.
Rudy Guede had to give his fingerprints in 2005 for permission to reside in Italy.
The Italian Police are incompetent in Amanda’s case because:
1) They failed to recover the bra clasp until 47 days after the murder.
They failed to go to local medical clinics to look for people with possible defensive wounds.
2) Patrizia Stefanoni was not properly trained in Low Copy Number (LCN) DNA testing and did not know that a luminol hit required a second test to confirm the presence of blood.
3) They destroyed at least two hard drives that contained important evidence
4) They failed to notify the family of the victim in a timely fashion. In fact the victim’s family had heard rumors that a British student named Meredith had been murdered and had been calling British tabloids in a desperate attempt to get more information.
5) They failed to examine the drain pipes in Raffaele’s house. If their theories are true they would have found blood and bleach there.
6) The failed to take DNA samples of the individual identified by Francesca Bene for comparison to DNA found at the crime scene.
7) They failed to measure the victim’s body temperature until 11 hrs after she was found.
9) They failed to analyze a large sperm sample found underneath the victim.
10) The failed to record the interrogation of AK.
11) They think that covering a victim with a duvet is a sign of a female killer. Standard texts on crime scene investigation make no mention of this.
12) They think that a large number of wounds is a sign of multiple killers. Experienced investigators call this “overkill” and it is not uncommon in homicide investigations.
13) They failed to arrest Rudy Guede in Milan even though they had proof of his participation in two separate breaking and entering incidents.
14) The failed to investigate reports by Cristian Tramontano that Rudy Guede had broken into his house and brandished a knife during his escape.
I am glad to hear your perspective as an American lawyer in italy on this case.
I don’t know all the details because like you, I wasn’t in that house that night, but it seems like Amanda Knox is guilty.
She accused an innocent man of the crime. He was jailed. On her words alone. If anything that proves that there is not anti-Americanism at play anywhere in Italy but there is antiAfricanism (if that’s the right word)
Yes, I agree with you, there was a heavy slant in the American press that The ‘Italians don’t really know what they are doing because their justice system is all wrong’ and that ‘there is an anti-American sentiment in Italy’…. Of course, what else are they gonna say? She’s an American. They don’t WANT her to be guilty. The press is not impartial.
Thanks for commenting about the alleged anti-American bias at least; much appreciated
Chris C.,
A side point… with the added coincidence that the broken window in the cottage was in the room of a trainee lawyer.
Also interesting about the burglary of the law firm, apparently, the perpetrator was able to disarm the alarm.
Michelle, you’re absolutely right, this case has nothing to do with anti-Americanism, or with issues specific to the Italian justice system. It has to do with cognitive problems in the conduct of criminal investigations, which can happen anywhere. In 1988, a young, white, well-educated American woman named Kelly Michaels was convicted of child sex-abuse charges that were and are absurd. It happened in New Jersey, and it took many years for her supporters to attain justice. Supporters of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito have no desire to turn this case into a cultural dispute. Our goal is to get two innocent people out of prison and raise public awareness of a problem that exists throughout the world.
Well I’m not sure you can speak for all the supporters of Knox and Sollecito as I’ve heard this anti-American stuff quite a bit, especially right when the verdict came out. Cantwell comes to mind immediately. I understand your point about criminal investigations, but then we have lawyer, judges, and jurors (and the appeals process) to act as balancers, don’t we? What specific changes or ideas do you have regarding the “cognitive problems in the conduct of criminal investigations?” I apologize in advance that if you respond, your comment will sit in moderation overnight, but I’ll get to it in the morning (my time)
Thanks for sharing your thoughts and letting others do the same. I, too, didn’t understand why Americans were so critical of the Italian justice system without knowing anything about it. Do most Americans know what happened in Cavalese in 1998? I don’t think so.
It also surprised me that Oprah interviewed Amanda Knox’s parents and presented the case with an blatant anti-Italian view. But I guess that’s what Amanda’s lawyers want the American public to believe. And why not? Just think about the money that can be made on this case. The book deal and films rights alone would be worth millions.
I didn’t see that Oprah interview, but I’ve heard about it. Lots of money to be made for sure, and yes, the longer it’s a mystery/conspiracy the better for those who would wish to capitalize. Disgusting. Thanks for commenting.
The allegations of anti-Americanism and the claims of a superior American system are a very minor part of this. It’s really just the other side putting words in our mouth and mischaracterizing our arguments.
Senator Maria Cantwell in her statement did mention anti-Americanism but that is about the only time I know of by a high profile commentator. I have never claimed anti-Americanism in my arguments and I have had a lot to say about this.
In fact the United States is not soft on Americans who commit crimes in other countries; we had assumed that the Italian justices system was no different than any other modern western nation. Our complaint is with the justice system in Perugia. I don’t know or care about the quality of justice in the rest of Italy.
Amanda’s friends came in with a presumption that the Perugian system was a good one; we followed the evidence; now the Italians have a growing war of words and a full blown international crisis on their hands. This was a problem of their own making.
It’s not going to go away until Amanda and Raffaele are freed and exonerated.
Italy has long been resentful of the privileged American college students who arrive in droves to misbehave and party in a country of incomparable beauty. Along with this resentment, the corruption of Mignini bore fruit and unjustly condemned these two, along with the false depictions presented by the British press. The tabloids in England are responsible for much misery, including the fictions involving Knox and Sollecito. Why would they falsely accuse Knox? It fits in with the Murdoch empire’s goal of sensationalizing cases and selling papers. Who cares if they’re innocent if they can sell papers.
The situation is a total circus. Sadly, there doesn’t seem to be the same sort of attention given to Knox and Sollecito by our government as the young journalists who were imprisoned in countries like North Korea. Maybe we need to send Bill Clinton over there to reason with them.
And no, I won’t be traveling to Italy any time soon. (No, I’m not the type of American who stays put and buys Gucci; I love Italy and have been numerous times.) I don’t make a habit of vacationing in countries where you can’t trust the police. It’s bad enough we have the NYPD here to deal with!
Just wondering where you get your resentment “facts” from? So you’re arguing that this resentment is the anti-American bias that stained this case? And yet my post detailing my experiences in Italy and the comments of countless others here (some of whom were here as students as well) that show the reality of Italy don’t count for anything and you have your “resentment” and you’re sticking to it. Interesting. Thanks for commenting.
Michelle, you ask, “What specific changes or ideas do you have regarding the ‘cognitive problems in the conduct of criminal investigations?’”
Most of what I know has to do with US cases. I have a book (“And the Blood Cried Out”) by a guy named Harlan Levy, who describes a famous case where he was an advisor to the trial prosecutor. He begins by describing a dramatic setback:
“‘I feel,” [the lead prosecutor] said, ‘like I’ve been kicked in the stomach.’”
The DNA didn’t match the suspects. So what to do? They realized they would have to accept the DNA results, but “we also started from the premise that we did have the right guys. Besides the statements by these defendants, which the jury would not hear, there were statements by other suspects, not on trial in this first case, implicating these defendants, even though they would never make it to the jury because they were hearsay.”
“It was true,” writes Levy, “that [two suspects] had made errors in their videotaped statements. [One suspect] had placed the attack on [the victim] at the wrong location, and [the other suspect] had described the sequence of attacks in an order contrary to that offered by the other defendants.”
OK, so the DNA didn’t match the suspects, and suspects’ confessions didn’t fit the facts of the crime. But so what? The prosecutors’ starting premise was that they had the right guys. And, indeed, they got a conviction. Levy writes:
“The prosecutors…stood squarely behind the DNA analysis and explained the absence of DNA evidence against the defendants in reasonable and logical terms.”
The book that celebrates this triumph was written in 1996. Harlan Levy didn’t know then what we all know now: that three innocent teenagers were convicted for the rape of the Central Park Jogger. The real perp did it alone. His DNA matched. His confession fit the facts of the crime.
That is the type of cognitive problem that needs to be addressed globally. On his website, Gregg McCrary, a former FBI agent who was involved in the Kafkaesque investigation that followed the murder of Stephanie Crowe, offers a brief review of a book he helped author, called “Criminal Investigative Failures.” He summarizes the three main reasons for these failures as follows:
* Cognitive biases, such as tunnel vision, that lead to mistakes in reasoning
* Organizational traps, such as groupthink, that investigators fall prey to within their agencies
* Probability errors, such as the prosecutor’s fallacy, in forensic science and criminal profiling
http://www.criminalprofiler.com/publications_criminal_investigative_failures.htm
I submit that all of these factors apply to the Meredith Kercher murder investigation. On November 6, 2007, when the authorities announced they had solved the crime, they had none of the forensic evidence that has since come to light. In the weeks that followed, they had no choice but to release Lumumba, because he had a multiple-witness alibi. That was embarrassing enough. So, when they got the DNA and fingerprint results that showed who really did it, they simply folded that suspect into the theory they had already announced. And then they got busy finding evidence. They found evidence that placed Amanda Knox in the bathroom she used every day, in the corridor she walked on every day, and in the room of a third housemate.
But they didn’t find any evidence that placed her in the room where the murder took place. Nor have they ever been able to come up with a plausible reason why Amanda would want to harm her housemate. But, like Levy and his colleague, these investigators started with the premise that they had the right guys, they took that premise to court, and they got a conviction despite the obvious flaws with their case.
Thank you for responding; I’m still not clear on how we address this global problem though. And I still can’t understand why having Guede wasn’t enough for them — so much so that they would after the fact frame two innocent people. I’m not saying it’s not possible (I’m a firm believer that anyone is capable of anything under the “right” circumstances), but surely you can understand why people may doubt your theory. To be honest, I could accept it much more easily if they didn’t already have someone to pin the murder on, but they did. I just don’t get why they’d all (how many people had to be involved?!) risk their livelihoods and their lives for this. Again, though, human behavior is often unpredictable.
Barbie Nadeau is a highly respected journalist. She is a senior writer for the Daily Beast, and a regular contributor to Newsweek, CNN, and the BBC. Linda Fairstein recommends her book as does the playwright, John Guare. I find it hard to believe that Amanda Knox is a cold blooded murderer. Her theory explains a lot, not the least of which, are Amanda’s many confusing and confused actions and statements. I am not saying I 100% buy into it, but it makes a certain sense. I think Michelle would find a central theme of the book most interesting: The disconnect and lack of understanding that Amanda’s support system seemed to have regarding the Italian legal system and culture. I really do not understand the hysteria and vitriol that this book seems to engender. If it is such a pack of lies, she would be either sued for libel or just ignored or laughed off. Frankly the reaction by those who are so obviously biased in favor of Amanda Knox’s complete innocence only add to the books credibility.
I do not know of their guilt or innocence. I can comment on my experience. As I was preparing to leave on a trip to Italy this winter a coworker commented. “Boy I wouldn’t go there, they hate Americans. Look at that college student that is in jail.” This was my third trip to Italy, first to southern Italy. I have never experienced any anti American feelings or actions. Do I think there may have been problems with the case… yes. But do I believe that the roots of the problems are because of Anti Americanism.. no way.
Thanks for sharing your experience, MV.
It is regrettable that HarryRag and others have led the discussion so far astray from its Anti-American question.. Personally, I do not why any of the pro-guilty people are still trying to make their case. They have their victory.
For the rest of the world that remains unconvinced and caring, July 9 is Amanda’s Birthday.
Show some compassion and humanitarian support by sending Amanda a Birthday greeting……………………
Amanda Knox
c/o Casa Circondariale
Strada Pievaiola
06100 Capanne (PG)
Italy
Remember, she can have no outside food, she is confined with another person to a cell half the size of the smallest bedroom in your house, she is limited to two showers a week, the air temperature is probably at or over 100 F with little or no ventilation, the cold water temperature is probably about the same, she is limited to 8 pieces of reading material at any one time, she is confined in this tiny space 23 hours a day, her sleep is interrupted at least once a night for a ‘count” as well as yelling and threats, and she must purchase her own supplemental food but it does not keep because of a lack of refrigeration. All incoming and outgoing mail is opened and read. All contents and money are confiscated. Prisoners may suffer retaliation for disparaging comments made by writers.
Do not celebrate Italy’s early departure from the World Cup in the first round.
Sorry, World Cup? You lost me.
I think theyre innocent, and there was no anti-American bias. That’s just the stupid US media grabbing a specious angle to rouse emotion.
I have to ask you something – you’re a lawyer but are you a criminal lawyer? It doesn’t seem like you are. I work in criminal defense and almost everyone waives their Miranda rights and speaks to the cops without a lawyer present, unless they’re either (1) well-educated and sharp about the legal system, or (2) recidivists who know how to work the system. That assumes they’re even read their rights, which doesn’t happen the majority of the time. Sometimes they even ask for a lawyer, but not in the terms that would force the police to stop questioning them – e.g. “I want to talk to someone” or “Should I have a lawyer?” don’t count. In Amanda’s case, she initially believed she was being questioned as a witness, and saw no reason to have a lawyer. When it turned aggressive, she asked “should I have a lawyer?” and they said that would make everything worse for her. I should add that young people are especially likely to waive their rights, because they’re easier to intimidate and have little life experience.
I obviously agree that people should ALWAYS say “get me a lawyer” and keep their mouths shut. But it doesn’t happen often in real life. And a large portion of the population actually does not watch crime shows like Law & Order. I never have. A lot of hippie types Amanda’s age don’t even own televisions. More importantly, many people in a frightening, confusing murder interrogation are not going to recall much less reach for the lessons of a TV show. For good reason – those shows are a million miles from reality, even if they occasionally get something right.
I have worked on criminal cases, but I’m not a criminal lawyer; her not asking for a lawyer wasn’t part of my post as I don’t think it’s a huge deal, but yes, I do still think it’s odd for a girl in a foreign country. But then by most accounts, Knox didn’t always follow norms, so it may not have been “odd” for her. I don’t read a whole lot into that, but I’m still entitled to think it’s strange. And very, very stupid. I suppose some of us have a hard time understanding why this would be a frightening, confusing murder investigation if she didn’t know anything about it, though. She kept telling everyone (her family, friends) that it was no big deal that she was talking to the police, that she wanted to help them find the killer, do what she could to help, etc…it doesn’t sound like she was so shaken up that she didn’t know what she was doing when she started talking, although granted the all-night interrogation could have changed her perspective a bit after the fact. Thanks for commenting
Maya:
Testing prisoners for HIV status is accepted practice around the world.
The problem is that corrupt prison officials lied to Amanda about the results of her test. At least this is what Barbie Latza Nadeau reports. Barbie is biased to the bone against Amanda so she would have reported the opposite if she could have gotten away with it.
In the United States, or Great Britain for that matter, any medical professional who told somebody they were HIV positive when they knew they weren’t would lose their license, be sued for millions, and go to jail.
The local provincial judicial system of Perugia does deserve to be bashed and more. What they have done in this case is astounding. I’m not convinced this is not a wider problem for Italy in general. Similar things certainly were written about in the book ‘Monster of Florence’. There seems to be some real problems going on in the justice system there.
Some of things that greatly disturbed me:
1. The overnight interrogation was not taped. (Yes she was a suspect HR)
2. She was interrogated over night by 12 officers.
3. She was denied house arrest during the trial because she didn’t show remorse.
4. It took Raffaele’s 21yr old cousin to prove that his shoes could not have been the ones that made prints in blood because of the number of rings on the bottom.
5. The police fried FOUR computers. Amanda’s, Raffaele’s, Meredith’s and Filomena’s.
6. The court denied the Knox family’s request to have Amanda’s laptop sent to Toshiba to try and retrieve the information that the police fried.
7. They denied the request to have independent forensic experts look at the evidence.
8. The prosecution team withheld forensic information from the defense.
9. The Jury was allowed to sleep during trial.
10. The postal police lied about entering Meredith room and lifting the comforter up. Luca saw him do this.
11. The Bra Clasp was left in a pile of dust on the floor and moved from the original location filmed.
12. The Bra Clasp was still allowed to be used as evidence against Raffaele even though chain of custody was clearly broken.
13. The knife tested negative for blood and DNA before claimed that Meredith’s DNA was found and tested to oblivion.
14. The prosecutor was simultaneously facing abuse of office charges and was still allowed to practice.
15. Now convicted the prosecutor is still being allowed to be involved in this case.
16. The prosecution had a fake doctor tell Amanda Knox she had Aids.
17. The police department gave Amanda Knox’s prison journal to the press who published it in a tabloid book.
18. The police department also stole letters and from Raffaele and Amanda that ended up in the papers.
19. A blood drenched towel tested negative for DNA. How? Improper storage allowed the DNA to rot.
20. The prosecution leaked known lies to the press. For example, that there was huge bleach clean up. They knew this wasn’t true and leaked it anyway.
21. The amount of time the whole process has taken.
22. Rogue prosecutors seem to be invincible to any punishment or sanctions
23. The news is suppressed by prosecutors being able to charge journalists with interference of investigations and important officials (themselves).
24. The prosecution is charging Amanda Knox for slander for defending herself even though they failed to tape the interrogation that could prove her word.
25. The prosecution is charging Amanda Knox’s parents with slander for saying what their daughter told them.
26. The police announced to the world that the case was closed within 5 days. Before DNA and fingerprints for unknown Rudy Guede were known.
I’m not even done, but will stop.
The most frustrating thing I’ve experienced over the months I’ve spent discussing this case is Italians will NEVER accept any criticism of their judicial system. Most of the Italians I’ve tried to discuss the case with have only responded with reverse criticism – your country is no better, at least we don’t have the death penalty, close Gitmo before looking at our system. Why will Italians not admit to any problems? Even if only in this case.
Michelle, I have to say, that you have brought up some very interesting and intelligent statements that are concise and worth commenting on. This is the first time I have responded at all to any blog or online articles, commentaries etc. whatsoever. In fact, I still may consider not sending what I am about to write, until I actually hit “submit comment”, and will probably ponder that for a few moments. You will certainly know the answer to that if you end up reading this.
Unfortunately, I have had to wade through the same “arm-chair detectives” who have now live for their daily Google alerts on the case to hijack blogs such as yours, and fill it with the same old cut and paste arguments they’ve been using since the case began, to get to some of the refreshing and thought provoking comments that have been written.
I am also an ex-pat, and have lived in Italy since I was 22. The closest resemblance to anything anti-American I ever came across was the bewilderment of George Bush serving 8 years as President; and perhaps the criticism that we have a mentality to work ourselves into the grave, with the knowledge that our pensions and insurance can be taken away at a moment’s notice. But that’s another argument for the “grass is always greener” commentary.
I also take offense to those who have said that the Italian justice system is more flawed than the American. Notice I used the word “more” in my sentence. Because like others, it is flawed, for different reasons than others that are flawed. I try to remind people that the birth of modern law was born here. But at the same time; it may be one of the very reasons it can be archaic, and in some cases, simply has not progressed.
I also believe that corruption exists in law enforcement, in the judicial system, and critical mistakes in investigations in every pocket of the civilized world, even Italy. That is a fact that should be taken as well into consideration. Let’s look at the similarities in case of Jon Benet Ramsey. A screw-up of monumental proportions that ended in snowballing tragedies that morphed from the initial one.
The uniformed police officers that attended the investigation were openly suspicious of the parents from the start. The initial crime scene investigation was criticized and later confirmed that it had been compromised; reporters used their own sources which always seemed to implicate the Ramseys. Local police from the small town leaked pieces of information to journalists (years later, these same reporters claim they were fed false information). It was also reported, over and over again, by publications such as Vanity Fair, that “sources” close to the Ramseys questioned their behavior. One of the main criticisms of the media was the accusation that the Ramseys “acted strangely” after their daughter’s murder, with one reporter going so far as to write, that on the morning after Jon-Benet’s death, Patsy Ramsey “seemed to smiling under splayed fingers”. Governor Wood came forward and said he himself had personal experience with sudden loss. “I discovered my mother’s body when I was 16 years old,” he says. “There was no guidebook to tell me how to look and react in what I experienced. If you think they didn’t act right, my advice would be to refrain from that kind of judgment until you’ve walked in their shoes.”
It was reported that John Ramsey flew the family on a private jet to the funeral, an unfeeling elitist who was clearly profiting from her death. Perhaps the local authorities, who were already beginning to suspect the Ramseys, were hoping that such stories would place additional pressure on them.
The Ramseys who initially returned to the police station over and over (and over) again to assist in the investigation, finally realized that the police, to use John’s words — “Weren’t there to help us, they were there to hang us.” It was at that point that the Ramseys hired criminal attorneys. Mike Bynum, a lawyer in the case said, “It is foolish to blindly throw oneself into the maw of the justice system and to trust the result. One simply must be thoughtful about the way one acts, especially in a case of media attention that reaches the point of near hysteria and especially in a case of media attention which, from the outset, portrays certain people as clearly guilty.”
“New evidence” and allegations appeared constantly. At one point, the Ramseys underwent 40 hours of interrogation. Even with blatant visual evidence that proved that theories was groundless, such as “there were no footprints in the snow leading to the house, therefore there was no ‘forced entry’, the stories continued to be told. People came forward with information that was dismissed, due to their “lack of credibility”, despite the fact that by law, every lead should be followed to its conclusion.
Now, many years later, with the solid knowledge publicly that the Boulder Police Department and their entire criminal justice organization botched the investigation of the bizarre murder of JonBenet Ramsey, starting with the destruction of the crime scene, the tunnel vision focused entirely on the family, the unprofessional leaks to the media, and the disregard for evidence that did not fit their preconceived notions of who killed the child, and after some changes in personnel, did the blame for this brutal crime shift from John and Patsy Ramsey. Only now, do we shake our heads and say, ‘how terrible”. How terrible that the news has become entertaining instead of informative, and personal tragedy has degenerated into a public spectacle. How terrible that not only did these people lose their child; but that they became suspects and branded scarlet lettered-pariahs. How terrible that the weight of it all killed her mother. Above all, because of it, how terrible that the trail of the real killer became cold.
And totally unrelated, let me add this in. I was near Amanda’s age when I first moved to Italy. I was a single woman far from home who could take risks without fear of reprisal. I made foolish decisions from my titillating and thrilling adventures. It never occurred to me that harm could find me; it was all an adventure.
There were many times I would walk home to my apartment in at 3 o’clock in the morning along Viale Trastevere, completely alone, with only a few functioning streetlamps or two to guide me. I would always think to myself – “This is what I love about Italy! A single, attractive woman, walking alone, with no one to hear her scream, can safely walk down the street!”. And for the most part, it was probably true. Or maybe I was just damn lucky. Obviously, Meredith Kercher was not. And neither was Amanda Knox or Rafaelle Sollecito.
After much editing, I have decided to submit my comments. What I have cut out is who I am, what I know, and concluded in my in-depth, exhaustive investigation of this case as a documentary journalist with RAI for over 17 years. I guess you’ll just have to wait for it to air.
I appreciate the space to share my thoughts.
Thanks so much for sharing your thoughts and experiences. I very much look forward to your documentary; sneak peeks welcome
As usual Harry Rag’s posts are filled with misinformation and outright lies.
Investigators did not change gloves or shoe covers when collecting evidence at the cottage.
Stefanoni wiped Amanda’s drop of blood off of the faucet before she collected the other samples on the sink, toilet, wall and bidet. Stefanoni kept her thumb down and rubbed her thumb repeatedly over the sample.
Stefanoni did not change her gloves after she collected each sample. As she collected samples, she continued to put the same thumb down into the sample that she was collecting. Keep in mind, it was unknown at the time, but the sample from the faucet contained Amanda’s blood. There was one small drop of Amanda’s blood on the faucet. this blood was not mixed with any other DNA. This drop of blood most likely came from an irritated ear piercing.
Stefanoni had now repeatedly rubbed her thumb in Amanda’s blood and then onto the next sample.
When Stefanoni collected the samples from the sink and the bidet, she used a wiping motion and wiped multiple surfaces with the same swab. She was collecting Amanda’s DNA from Amanda’s own bathroom as she was collecting Meredith’s blood samples. Not only was she collecting Amanda’s residual DNA, she was mixing it together with Meredith’s blood.
Stefanoni used the swabs like cleaning rags in the bathroom. These same procedures can be seen throughout the cottage.
I normally refuse to discuss this, especially because it turns into a big “well here’s why she did it or here’s why she didn’t do it” and I think people just get too worked up over it and it annoys me. Plus I am terrible at discussing these sorts of things so I prefer to just stay out of it. I’m glad you mentioned the supposed “anti-Americanism” which in my opinion does not exist in this situation.
I am not law savvy so I can only share my personal experience as an American from Seattle who was living in Perugia at the time of Amanda’s conviction.
Not once did I see or hear anything that might suggest the system or population be “anti-American”. I was curious how the Perugini would perceive me and how they would talk about her, but you’d be interested to know that everyone I know there felt for Amanda (although the majority believe she was at least there) and everyone seemed to feel compassionate towards her family as well as Raffaele’s family.
The city of Perugia did everything they could to take care of the Knox family, I saw with my own eyes – and if this had been an “anti-American” situation you know that would not have happened.
Had this happened in a lot of other countries, particularly in the third world, she and her family would not have received the help that they did.
Thanks so much for sharing your perspective Tina; unfortunately I think with this case people believe what they want to believe — actual experiences reported by people independent of the whole thing be damned. To be honest, no one I know here even followed the case for more than the three minutes it got on the evening news when something in the case happened, but that’s not the impression the American media gives either — more on that tomorrow (Wednesday)
Thanks again for commenting.
Hello Michelle- Interesting article and as you can see by the posts here that there is a lot of contention going on involving the Amanda Knox conviction. I agree with you that anti-American bias was not a factor involving her arrest and conviction, however, I strongly believe that Knox got a raw deal. For those who say the Italians are against Americans is without foundation and actually quite absurd. I do not believe the Italian law system is the fault in this case but rather a few individuals handling the prosecution and a quick rush to judgement on the part of the investigators. It is a fact that there were some rather shady tactics used in the investigation and trial of Amanda Knox- and this is why so many Americans who know the case are choking on it. It is not the fact that the evidence was rather slim with no ‘smoking gun’. It is the tactics that were used against Knox that is hard to swallow for anyone interested in fairness and justice. Several outlandish things come to mind instantly such as (1) Knox had no lawyer present and went through the ringer at her questioning by police and it was not taped which is contratary to Italian law- Why? (2) It is a fact that over and over again false information was ‘leaked’ to the press about Amanda- Even her diary which was in police possession ended up in the Italian newspapers- as is contratary to Italian law- Why? She was told in prison she was HIV position and to provide info on her sex relations only for it to be in the newspapers (contrary to Italian law) and then she is told “whoops your not HIV positive”. In her defense Amanda claimed the police were hostile and and had never been so afraid in her life and contended police abuse – for which she is being sued- now that is ridiculous- but- she didn’t know that in Italy one is not allowed to speak against the police- not even in her own defense in court. So, while I believe anti-American bias had nothing to do with her conviction I do believe as many others that the conviction of Amanda Knox was a raw deal that needs to be addressed at her appeal. I can understand your caution Michelle- you are in Italy- I am safe in New York. I do believe that some of the investigators and particularly the prosecutor Mignini did not play fairly in their treatment of Knox and wanted her convicted at any cost- That girl was doomed before the trial began- Without any anti-Italian bias- I do not believe these tactics would have been allowed in a U S court of law, and that is what upsets so many Americans who know the facts in this case. It wasn’t Italian law that convicted Knox- Italian law was breached so many times in this case I lost count.
I have no doubt that her conviction will be addressed at her appeal; that’s what the process is for. It will certainly be interesting to see other judges deal with the evidence. Thanks for sharing your thoughts
Because I am from an European neighbouring country, I would admit, that “anti-americanism” isn’t a big issue in this case.
BUT: It has very well to do with the perception of women in “modern” Italy, because regardless Raffaele Sollecito and proven Rudy Guede’s involvement a woman stands in the center of this case! And although Amanda herself is very far away from the images of the topless girls everywhere in Italian medias, she is prosecuted also by of all emancipated female police-officers, prosecutors and judges! Even though every honest crime psychologist will admit, that the different stories made up by the prosecution AND Corte d’Assise related to the personalities of AK and RS have a possibility, capability and probability around ZERO(!), the wish of a guilty-verdict seems to be rather high?! So this case is full of (also many other) complete mad contradictions!
To the different justice systems: In other European countries AK and RS would never have been on the dock! According to article 27 of the Italian constitution the condemned are theoretically still innocent! (When was the presumption of innocence ever “seriously” recognized during the proceedings, compare the reasons of the imprisonment at the very beginning with the motivation-results!?). But they are incarcerated soon three years and they can be imprisoned two or four years more. You cut them off ca. five years of live and say afterwards “never mind”, after damaging their reputation, without mentioning the collateral damages of their families etc.? Sorry, is this fair? Either slowly without incarceration or faster with imprisonment! And look also to the convictions of Italy through the European Court of Human Rights! Outside Italy their justice system doesn’t have a good reputation and with this case it gets worse!
You have always to remember the press conference of the police in 7th nov. 2007, there is the key for the following proceedings! And it’s wrong to assume that no character assassination took place in the medias! Finally I want to know what is wrong in Candace Dempsey’s book beside “anti-americanism-blahblah”?
I admit I had a little difficulty following your comment, but I’ll try to respond to what I can. Regarding the imprisonment in Italy before trial, actually many Italians aren’t happy with that concept either, and that is a valid point — but it’s for Italy to fix in its justice system, and it doesn’t just apply to Knox, Sollecito, and Guede. Regarding Candace’s book, I wrote a review on it last week; you can read it there — and to be clear, I wasn’t saying that Candace’s book in particular was full of the anti-Americanism claim. I’m sorry I didn’t follow your first part about women to comment.
Thank you for the response Michelle- I have the feeling you would have liked to have said more but as it stands I think it was…um…well thought out. Just being playful
I will follow your other articles on this. Oh and by the way I do not think Knox supporters are a minority in the U S. I think as time goes by the Amanda is innocent crowd will become the majority in the U S as more and more people become familiar with the case- just my opinion of course.
Time will tell. It is my understanding that the US State Department actually did follow this case; I’m wondering if you know anything about that?
O.Fallaci,
You wrote:
“Or maybe I was just damn lucky. Obviously, Meredith Kercher was not. And neither was Amanda Knox or Rafaelle Sollecito.”
It seems you forgot to cut out what you concluded in your “in-depth, exhaustive” investigation.
I’m sure a certain David Marriott from Seattle will be very pleased with your conclusion. Perhaps, as an American journalist living in Italy, you’re already acquainted with him.
Should we expect the RAI documentary to be strategically aired just before Amanda Knox’s appeal in the autumn?
I really hope that the RAI documentary addresses the reasons why Knox and Sollecito gave multiple conflicting alibis and repeatedly told the police a pack of lies. So far, nobody has been able to provide a plausible innocent explanation for their triple alibis and repeated lies.
If the real Oriana Fallaci were still alive, I’m sure she would have endeavoured to get all her facts straight and give both sides of the story. This is something that too many journalists who have covered the case have failed to do.
It remains to be seen whether your documentary will be any different to the horribly biased and error-ridden documentaries that we’ve become accustomed to. I won’t hold my breath.
The U S state Dept will not get involved with anything so complex as the Amanda Knox case in my opinion. Clinton has her advisers but is probably not that well informed about the case. No one is going to cause international tension on something like this- just not ‘politically correct’. I imagine the State Dept is not going to stick their neck out unless there is some obvious or should I say HUGE breech of human rights in this case. It’s safer for people like Clinton not to take a stand- politically speaking. Still, I am sure someone with the State Dept is keeping score on what is happening and if they ever do come out and make a stand you can be certain there is clear evidence of to support them. At this point I do not think the State Dept has enough info to do anything except wait and see- how safe, but there is nothing so obviously unjust here to force Clinton to do something. I am sure they are aware of the weird things that have gone on in this case and that Amanda’s rights have been violated but as of yet not so big as to do something about it. I think they (State Dept) look at it like they are not going to put their political careers on the line for someone who ‘may’ have murdered someone- violated rights or not. I do think Italy or should I say the powers that be in Perugia need to watch what they do from this point on because if this girl’s rights continue to be violated then someone just may say enough is enough and finally step in. But at this particular point in time- I guess it’s not enough. Interestingly, the slander trial judge who is clearly not impartial about Knox is still allowed to try the case- I am wondering what you think as an attorney about this- but no need to comment on it in public. Like I said before- I’m in New York- you are not. Hopefully the U S State Dept will not need to do anything and that it all works itself out through Italian justice. The sad thing is as I see it- this girl’s life is shot and they are wearing her down- If I thought she was guilty I wouldn’t care but since I believe she is innocent and getting a really bad deal I find it a sin. And this is happening in Italy- right now- and who is going to do anything about it? Unfortunately, a political power such as Hillary Clinton, and a matter begging for the principle to be defended, is a contradiction in terms.
Really interesting take; makes me ask a few questions: Why wouldn’t the State Department have just as much if not more info than we as the public have? If the State Dept doesn’t see anything “so obviously unjust” how come so many others do? What are they missing? Even more curious, why would Clinton care about taking a political stand one way or the other? She’s done the run for president thing and doesn’t seem too likely to go it again — but even if she did, how would fighting for the rights of an American overseas hurt her chances with Americans? To be honest, I’d like to see a more clear statement from the State Dept on this to know what if anything they are doing or plan to do.
As for the impartiality of the judge, I didn’t follow that aspect closely to know what the judge has said of Knox outside of judging a previous case (if anything), but I don’t see why handing down a decision against Knox in the past in another (albeit related) matter would automatically make her biased against her. Part of being a judge, and why we put them there, is we believe they take each case as it comes and decide based on the evidence in front of them, and for the most part we trust them to know when their impartiality may be compromised. As I said, I don’t know what else happened, but just the fact that the judge has previously decided against her in a different matter, to me, doesn’t mean she wouldn’t be impartial on the slander charge. If I were Knox’s attorney would I fight it? Sure, but those are lawyer games IMHO. Unless this judge was heard out of court saying what an arrogant little sh*t Knox is or something like that, I don’t see a problem. If she did, well, yes, I would be upset that she’s the presiding judge.
Some posts in this thread refer to Barbie Latza Nadeau as “respected” and the author of an “excellent” book. Barbie Latza Nadeau has a shameful history of biased reporting on the case. For the record here are some of Barbie Latza Nadeau’s lies.
Barbie Latza Nadeau (Daily Beast, 27-Jun-09)
“With the exception of a hickey on Knox’s neck, no one documented cuts or bruises on either of the current suspects and police say that Guede did not have cuts or bruises on his body when he was arrested nine days after Kercher’s murder.”
This statement is a lie. Barbie correctly states that AK and RS had no defensive wounds, but falsely claims that Guede had no injuries. In fact Guede did have injuries to his hands which were photographed nearly three weeks after the crime by German police when he was taken into custody. Photographs of those injuries are available on the PMF web site. Guede’s own defense council even admits this and tries to claim that the injuries were from fighting off the real attacker. The Daily Beast has an obligation to retract this false statement.
Barbie Latza Nadeau’s statement that Rudy Guede was taken into custody nine days after the murder is a lie. He was taken into custody 19 days after the murder. This is very typical of her lack of attention to accuracy. The Daily Beast has an obligation to retract this false statement.
Barbie Latza Nadeau (Newsweek, 14-Jul-08)
“And by her own account in a prison diary leaked to the media, she details her sexual escapades with at least seven men she’d been with in her three months in Italy before her arrest. She even wrote that she might have HIV and then she uses a process of elimination to narrow down who might have given it to her.”
This statement is a lie. In fact Italian authorities had used a corrupt prison official to tell Amanda she had AIDS in an effort to collect evidence about her past sexual encounters. Amanda had not had sexual encounters with seven men and Italy and her diary didn’t she had. Newsweek has an obligation to retract this false statement.
Barbie Latza Nadeau (Daily Beast, 18-Feb-09)
“In one entry, she describes the night of the crime: “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. And 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.”
The Correct Quote: ” So 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 the blood off, rubbed my fingerprints all over it, put it away, then tucked himself back into bed, and then pretended really well the next couple of days, well, I just highly doubt all of that.”
Barbie Latza Nadeau’s assertion that Amanda wrote the words quoted in the Daily Beast is a lie. The Daily Beast has an obligation to retract this false statement.
Barbie Latza Nadeau (Daily Beast, 27-Jun-09)
“He [Rudy Guede] has never changed his story. He has always maintained that they were all there, but that he is not the one who killed her.”
Barbie Latza Nadeau’s assertion that Rudy Guede has never changed his story is a lie. The words were spoken by one of Guede’s attorneys but appear in a headline in the article. Here are two quotes from Guede that show he has changed his story:
Rudy Guede in police monitored cell phone call before his arrest (Nov 2007)
“Listen, you know I knew those girls, I knew them both, Meredith and Amanda, but nothing more, you know that. I’ve been to their house twice, the last time a few days before all this business, but I didn’t do anything. I have nothing to do with this business. I wasn’t there that evening. If they have found my fingerprints it means I must have left them there before.”
Rudy Guede’s prison Diary:
“I tried to help her, she who squeezed my hands. She was strong, “But don’t leave me alone,” she repeated to me. I told her “Don’t worry I won’t abandon you.” Damn, if I had only had my cell phone with me, perhaps I might have saved her.”
Barbie Latza Nadeau (Daily Beast 4-Dec-09)
“At one point the stepmother of Raffaele Sollecito, Knox’s former boyfriend who was sentenced to 25 years for his part in the murder, yelled out “F__k you!”
That statement is a lie. In fact Raffale’s stepmother had said “Forte Raffale” (stay strong Raffaele.) The Daily Beast has an obligation to retract this statement.
In the above examples Barbie Latza Nadeau is reporting what she would like to be the truth, not what is the truth.
Hi Michelle— I really appreciate your balanced and forthright commentary. It is very refreshing! I agree that the anti-americanism charge in the media is absurd (I have lived in Europe and my sister currently does).
It helps to know that this charge, as well as other erroneous charges, have been perpetrated by a high profile PR firm run by David Marriott. I encourage everyone to google the names David Marriott and Senator Maria Cantwell and you will see that he is a campaign contributor.
Looking forward to your next posts!
That name (Marriott) has come up before in the comments; I don’t know anything about him, but it sure is an interesting twist.
Michelle:
In your response above you speak to the issue of the impartiality and quality of the Perugian judges. We have every right to question whether the officials in this particular court know what they’re doing.
Those who have followed this case know that the much of the well deserved criticism of the Italian judicial system in Amanda’s case has landed on a corrupt prosecutor named Giuliano Mignini. (It is not just me who is labeling him as such; he was convicted and sentenced to prison by an Italian court earlier this year.)
Not to be forgotten, however, are a series of incompetent judges who because Italian law largely prevents public access to court records have for the most part avoided public scrutiny.
“Judge” Giancarlo Massei presided over Amanda’s trial and wrote the 427 page motivation document detailing why he felt she was guilty. Despite its length the document is devoid of substance and reads like a cheap crime novel. A recurring obsession for him is the idea that the lack of physical evidence against Amanda Knox could be explained by a careful and deliberate cleanup of the crime scene. Despite all these efforts there remained one item that the Judge steadfastly maintains does not need to examined, a large semen stain found underneath the victim. I am not making this up. See page 381 of the Motivation document.
Massei also saw no problem with jury members who according to multiple eye-witness accounts choose to sleep each day in court. Did this “judge” ever tell the jurors that the standard was guilt beyond a reasonable doubt? If he did, then Juror Angela Irene Ceccarini didn’t listen. She stated the next day that “It’s hard to see Knox and Sollecito doing this, but it’s possible… we can all drink too much then get in a car and drive.” Ms. Ceccarini goes on to make vain, narcissistic comments about how difficult the decision was for all of them.
And then there is the strange case of the “judge” who reduced the sentence of the real killer Rudy Guede from 30 years to 16. This “judge” somehow came to believe that Guede had apologized to the family of the victim. Guede, who’s DNA was inside the victim’s vagina, had actually apologized for not doing enough to save the victim from her real attackers. Never mind that he fled the scene of the crime, that he never knew the victim before as he claims she invited him over for a date and on and on into absurdity.
And last but not least the subject of the above article, Claudia Matteini. During the period before the trial, Perugian authorities out did themselves releasing false information about the case to local reporters. This so angered a real judge form that Seattle area named Michael Heavey that he felt obligated to speak up. He wrote: “A Perugian judge, Claudia Matteini, was caught up in this false speculation and has repeated and added to the false speculation in her opinions.
From Larry King Live to CBS news to the pages of the New York Times, commentators openly labeled the Perugian tribunal a “kangaroo court” and a “public lynching.” Don’t expect justice when the judges are rotten.
I didn’t say it was inappropriate to question the impartiality of Judge Matteini; I just said I don’t think there’s anything behind it unless there are other facts I don’t know.
On the topic of anti-Italianism, let me share Amanda’s own words: “I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: I like Italy. Those who have accused me and condemned me are are wrong and my conviction is unacceptable, but I would be living without hope if I believed justice couldn’t happen here in Italy. That is my hope.”
Let me be clear: Amanda Knox is in prison now to satisfy the whims of a crazed and corrupt public minister and his cronies. I trust those of you who have spent significant time in Italy on the goodness and decency of the Italian people and their justice system, in general. But I was a trial lawyer with the US Justice Dept for over 30 years. Logic is my crutch that gets me through each day. Common sense my fail safe. Nothing about Amanda’s conviction makes any sense to me. No evidence of her at the crime scene, no violence in her past. No motive for her to team up with some miscreant she did not know to kill her friend. No evidence to support the sex game fantasy as opposed to, for example, botched robbery. As a juror I would find her innocent beyond a reasonable doubt.
As for the 400 page report, I don’t know about you, but I’d prefer quality over quantity. I expect it is over 400 pgs because they used Crayons.
Mignini has embarrassed Italy with his antics, but, like Amanda, I have hope that this human rights travesty can yet be fixed. If so, bravo Italy.
I could be wrong, but from your comment about the motivazioni, it seems you haven’t read it? It’s typed I assure you
)
One more thing. The State Dept has a very strong policy of not interfering with the judicial process of a sovereign nation. So while the case is on appeal, it’s unlikely they’ll attempt to exert influence. When appeals are exhausted that may shift. I also expect they fear a backlash if they step in now that could work against Amanda. You can’t read anything into how Clinton thinks about the case by her silence.
I can read anything into anything I like, I’m pretty sure….
Lauren Wrote:
“In Amanda’s case, she initially believed she was being questioned as a witness, and saw no reason to have a lawyer. When it turned aggressive, she asked “should I have a lawyer?” and they said that would make everything worse for her. I should add that young people are especially likely to waive their rights, because they’re easier to intimidate and have little life experience.”
Well Lauren, Amanda ‘was’ initially being questioned as a witness. As soon as she became a suspect they halted the questioning, in line with Italian law. The police ‘did’ tell her that if she asked for a lawyer it would would make things much worse for her. They were correct and as such were fully right to inform her of the danger of that step. ‘Had’ Amanda insisted on having a lawyer, the police would have had to have halted the questioning immediately and made her a formal suspect. And trust me, it is much better to be a witness (legally) then a suspect, so they were quite right to inform her of this.
Renesmee Wrote:
“The local provincial judicial system of Perugia does deserve to be bashed and more. What they have done in this case is astounding. I’m not convinced this is not a wider problem for Italy in general. Similar things certainly were written about in the book ‘Monster of Florence’. There seems to be some real problems going on in the justice system there.
Some of things that greatly disturbed me:…”
Well then, no need to be disturbed any longer since practically everything in your list is incorrect. Happy days then
Michelle -
Nice article and nice site
Thanks for stopping by, Michael and clarifying the point about suspect vs. witness; I probably personally wouldn’t have taken their word for it, but that’s me
PhanuelB Wrote:
“From Larry King Live to CBS news to the pages of the New York Times, commentators openly labeled the Perugian tribunal a “kangaroo court” and a “public lynching.” Don’t expect justice when the judges are rotten.”
And those are precisely the critics Michelle’s article was being critical of are they not? The people you cite were all commenting from a position of ignorance, both on the actual facts of the case and of the Italian system.
PhanuelB Wrote:
“And then there is the strange case of the “judge” who reduced the sentence of the real killer Rudy Guede from 30 years to 16. This “judge” somehow came to believe that Guede had apologized to the family of the victim. Guede, who’s DNA was inside the victim’s vagina, had actually apologized for not doing enough to save the victim from her real attackers. Never mind that he fled the scene of the crime, that he never knew the victim before as he claims she invited him over for a date and on and on into absurdity.”
Actually, the judge gave Rudy mitigation, the same mitigation that Knox and Sollecito had been given in their trials and for the same reason. Guede hadn’t been given that mitigation in his first degree trial and that was unfair, so that was righted. His mitigation discount amounted to 6 years discount, taking his sentence down from 30 to 24 years making his sentence for the murder the same as Amanda’s and Raffaele’s. The fact he also said ‘sorry’ to the Kerchers and was the only one to do so, didn’t hurt him either. Don’t you think it fair that he get the same sentence for murder as his co-murderers? Anyway, since his final sentence was 24 years, because he took the fast track trial he was automatically entitled (the judge had no say in the matter, it’s the law) to a 1/3 discount of his total, bringing his final sentence down from 24 years to 16. Had Amanda and Raffaele taken the fast track trial route, they too would have been rewarded with a 1/3 discount. The fact they didn’t is their own choice and not the fault of the judge.
PhanuelB Wrote:
“Those who have followed this case know that the much of the well deserved criticism of the Italian judicial system in Amanda’s case has landed on a corrupt prosecutor named Giuliano Mignini. (It is not just me who is labeling him as such; he was convicted and sentenced to prison by an Italian court earlier this year.)”
Then by your logic, if we ‘know’ him to be guilty ‘because he was convicted’, does then this not also apply to Raffaele and Amanda? As I recall it, they had an 11 month trial and were found guilty in a unanimous verdict. So, what’s all the fuss then…or is a double standard in play?
But in any case, further on the Mignini topic. He was actually tried and found innocent of all charges. The prosecution appealed and it was in the appeal that he was found guilty…of ‘one’ charge, his innocence of all the others was upheld. The guilty verdict was on the charge of illegal wire tapping. However, since the Mignini obtained a court order from a judge to place those taps which makes them legal. It therefore is strange that he was convicted, although pretty much all insiders know that his conviction was political. In any case, the court order for the taps will form the basis of his appeal. And I’m willing to be you, that conviction will be dismissed on appeal. The political point has been made.
PhauelB Wrote:
“Massei also saw no problem with jury members who according to multiple eye-witness accounts choose to sleep each day in court. Did this “judge” ever tell the jurors that the standard was guilt beyond a reasonable doubt? If he did, then Juror Angela Irene Ceccarini didn’t listen. She stated the next day that “It’s hard to see Knox and Sollecito doing this, but it’s possible… we can all drink too much then get in a car and drive.” Ms. Ceccarini goes on to make vain, narcissistic comments about how difficult the decision was for all of them.”
Talk to any court lawyer. They’ll tell you jurors often nod off, especially in complex convoluted cases. ‘Guilt beyond reasonable doubt’? Please define that. Few judges adversarial courts give that instruction to juries these days and indeed, in the UK, judges are told not to do so. In the Italian system, they’re not jurors anyway, they are lay judges supervised by two professional judges. Were I innocent, I’d rather put my fate in the hands of those, then in the hands of an amateur jury, as would be the case in the US/UK common law systems.
PhauelB:
““Judge” Giancarlo Massei presided over Amanda’s trial and wrote the 427 page motivation document detailing why he felt she was guilty. Despite its length the document is devoid of substance and reads like a cheap crime novel. A recurring obsession for him is the idea that the lack of physical evidence against Amanda Knox could be explained by a careful and deliberate cleanup of the crime scene. Despite all these efforts there remained one item that the Judge steadfastly maintains does not need to examined, a large semen stain found underneath the victim. I am not making this up. See page 381 of the Motivation document.”
Actually, you are making it up since no semen stain has been found under the victim. All there was was a stain that ‘might’ be semen that the defence waited until almost the very last moment of the trial to raise and request to be tested, in the full knowledge that the judge would say no and rightly so, since it was clearly a defence stunt to cause a delay. They had months to test it themselves or request the judge order a test, they did not. It’s clear they did not want it tested. The fact is, it’s totally unlikely to be semen since it could just as easily be make-up or Vaseline lip balm which Meredith used and one would expect to be on her pillow. Judge Massei’s point that even if it was semen, it couldn’t be dated, is correct and if it can’t be dated then it has little value. And what ‘if’ it ‘is’ semen (which it almost certainly isn’t) and it ‘could’ be dated (which it can’t) what then, what of import would it tell us? That Meredith Kercher was sexually attacked? That we know already. That if it belonged to one of the two males convicted they were in Meredith’s room the night of the murder? That we know already. So, what would it tell us, or more precisely tell the court, that we don’t know already?
Michelle Wrote -
“Thanks for stopping by, Michael and clarifying the point about suspect vs. witness; I probably personally wouldn’t have taken their word for it, but that’s me”
What, their advice that having a lawyer would make things more serious for you? Well, I think, even though it’s true what the police advised, I think most sensible people wouldn’t.
But then, it also has to be looked at in context. Amanda, Raffaele and all the other flat mates as well as Meredith’s girlfriends had all already been to the questura for questioning on multiple occasions over the previous days and they hadn’t bothered with lawyers then (for example, Laura the other housemate, had already been questioned 5-6 times). Why the sudden need? I can imagine someone thinking they’d better get a lawyer if it was their first time and it seemed they were the only one being questioned and things were getting a little rough. Yes, the police on this occasion got rather intense which made Amanda start to think, but then I can understand her being a little confused about whether she needed one or not just all of a sudden since she hadn’t needed one before.
Yes, I agree with you; it absolutely has to be taken into context. I’m a lawyer, though, so I would absolutely want an Italian lawyer by my side no matter what it meant from the beginning — especially considering murder was involved. I read in Candace’s book that one of Knox’s roommates did get a lawyer (I’m not sure at what stage) but then again she was training to be a lawyer, so that didn’t surprise me at all. I come from a place of not trusting police generally (I’m a leftie to the extreme), so I wouldn’t have believed anything they told me (even if they were, as you say, telling the truth). At the very least I would’ve been contacting my consulate. But as I said, that’s me. I’m not saying Italian police didn’t follow the protocol, I just think Knox was either (a) being naive, which from other things she’s done, is entirely believable or (b) purposely *not* asking for a lawyer because maybe she thought it would look bad. I really don’t know.
Michelle Wrote -
“Yes, I agree with you; it absolutely has to be taken into context. I’m a lawyer, though, so I would absolutely want an Italian lawyer by my side no matter what it meant from the beginning — especially considering murder was involved. I read in Candace’s book that one of Knox’s roommates did get a lawyer (I’m not sure at what stage) but then again she was training to be a lawyer, so that didn’t surprise me at all. I come from a place of not trusting police generally (I’m a leftie to the extreme), so I wouldn’t have believed anything they told me (even if they were, as you say, telling the truth). At the very least I would’ve been contacting my consulate. But as I said, that’s me. I’m not saying Italian police didn’t follow the protocol, I just think Knox was either (a) being naive, which from other things she’s done, is entirely believable or (b) purposely *not* asking for a lawyer because maybe she thought it would look bad. I really don’t know.”
Well, being a lawyer of course you have an advantage
Knox wasn’t. I’m sure it also occurred to her (and would to me too were I in that situation) that were she suddenly to ask for a lawyer it would make her look guilty, like she had something to hide and was no longer co-operating and I would fear creating that perception. As a lawyer, that probably wouldn’t bother you, but I think it would bother a lot of people who aren’t lawyers. Therefore, I’d opt for (b).
As for Candace. Where to start. Yes, she made the claim a lot on her blog that Laura and Filomena always went to the questura with lawyers (I was a poster on her blog in its early days). It sounds like she’s also put that in her book. She never offered a source for that claim, despite multiple requests for one, it would just be something that Candace would regularly say without supporting it. I have never in the history of this case seen a source for that other then Candace Dempsey, or someone parroting what Dempsey has said. Candace would make a ‘lot’ of claims like that, without support. So, without corroboration, I’d take that claim with the pinch of salt it deserves. Although, I might accept that Filomena and Laura may have on an occasion or so had a lawyer for company since after all, both of them did work for law firms and so that would have been the reason (and probably root of Candace’s ‘idea’, which I honestly believe is just an assumption on her part). But, the way Candace tells it, that Filomena and Laura immediately went and themselves lawyered up (with Candace using this as an example of how serious it was for them and so Amanda ‘should’ have had a lawyer and if Filomena and Laura didn’t have one they’d have been in trouble from the nasty police too, but that’s why they weren’t and Amanda was…bah, blah) is absolutely not how it was and is pure spin. On the day Meredith’s body was discovered they all went down the questura together as a group. Filomena and Laura didn’t run off to get lawyers first. Neither it would seem, did they advise Amanda to get a lawyer which one would expect them to do if they felt they needed to have a lawyer. That suggests to me Candace’s claim is false, ir at least, certainly not how she likes to paint it.
Oops, important to mention: The David Marriot PR firm has been hired by Amanda’s family. The claims made by the media are being fed to them by the PR firm which is being paid for by the Knox family. That’s why his name has come up in connection with your post.
might as well add my “bean”
brava! well said.
“It is my understanding that the US State Department actually did follow this case.” – Michelle
What does that mean to you? What does that signify?
It’s ridiculous enough that this discussion has gotten this off-track; I refuse to go back and repeat the off-track discussions on top of it. Read through the rest of the comments; there’s a whole discussion on the State Department. Knock yourself out.
Michael posted: “Actually, you are making it up since no semen stain has been found under the victim. All there was was a stain that ‘might’ be semen that the defence waited until almost the very last moment of the trial to raise and request to be tested, in the full knowledge that the judge would say no and rightly so, since it was clearly a defence stunt to cause a delay.”
Judge Massei’s Motivations Report (page 381) states that the stain was not tested since a semen stain cannot be dated if in fact that is what the stain is. Yet the judge seems to have no problem seemingly placing Amanda’s blood with Meredith’s blood being deposited at the same time in the shared bathroom—i.e., blood, like semen, cannot be dated. Also, Amanda’s and Raffaele’s appeals come close to demanding that this stain be tested.
Having a hard time understanding why a delay in the trial presents a problem. I see ‘justice’ being of much greater concern than inconvenience due to time delays. I suspect Amanda and Raffaele would feel the same way.
Michael writes:
” Judge Massei’s point that even if it was semen, it couldn’t be dated, is correct and if it can’t be dated then it has little value. And what ‘if’ it ‘is’ semen (which it almost certainly isn’t) and it ‘could’ be dated (which it can’t) what then, what of import would it tell us? That Meredith Kercher was sexually attacked? That we know already. That if it belonged to one of the two males convicted they were in Meredith’s room the night of the murder? That we know already. So, what would it tell us, or more precisely tell the court, that we don’t know already?”
“Judge” Massei writes in his motivation document:
“As the court has previously ruled we do not see a need under Articles 523 and 507 to examine certain untested samples. Regarding the stains found on a pillowcase, as identified by the Sollecito defense team, it should be noted that: in addition to the question of whether the sample is actually human sperm, it would be impossible to determine whether the sample was deposited at the time that Meredith was killed. Since we have determined that Meredith was sexually active, including at times in her room ( see Giacomo Silenzi testimony), and taking into consideration the difficulty of establishing when the sample was deposited, we find that even if the sample were sperm it could still be irrelevant. The request is therefore exploratory in nature and lacks the requirement of absolute necessity.”
Prosecutor Manuela Commodi states:
“The prosecutor has done everything he can to ascertain the truth. He has provided all the evidence he can. During the investigation everything possible was done. No line of investigation was neglected.”
This is surreal. I’m sorry but in the investigation of a sexually motivated homicide something that looks like a semen stain gets tested and that’s the end of it. This item is important because it shows that investigators were cherry picking evidence. They’re obsessed with a 100 picogram sample said to be of MK in the apartment of RS but they aren’t interested in an apparent semen stain. A picogram by the way is a millionth of a millionth of a gram.
“Judge” Massei’s logic here as elsewhere is flawed because everywhere else he discounts the possibility that Amanda’s DNA (found in her house) might have been deposited before the murder. It’s true that you can’t tell when DNA was deposited. So what. If it’s Silenzi’s (it probably is) then it doesn’t matter because he was out of town. If it’s from somebody unkonwn, then the whole case is blown open. If it’s not semen then it was still something they had to check. I don’t accept it could have been vaseline. It doesn’t dry and it has a unique smell to it which lasts for weeks.
If anyone here thinks that it was acceptable not to test that item then please speak up and be counted.
Amelia Bedelia:
Please provide an example of a “claim made by the media” that was “fed to them by the PR firm which is being paid for by the Knox family.”
CBS, CNN, and the New York Times have strict standards for the sourcing of information. They know how to go to a foreign country and report on a story. Journalistic standards are very different in the United States than in Europe.
What is the source of your misinformation ?
Anti –Americanism is not a factor in the case in my opinion. This may have been said by a few people and the media hyped it up. It also did not come from any “PR firm”. David Marriot was hired by the Knox’s to advise them on how to deal with the tabloids that were harassing them. They are not generating any “spin.” The media drums that up all on its own! As for the details of the case, many people have done extensive research and read released documents regarding the trial and the evidence presented and made intelligent decisions for themselves. I have read through these comments all day and there have been many good points raised. Of course, Harry Rag is here and also “michael” from PMF repeating their mistruths and outright lies. You stated that you are not judging guilt or innocence but I must say, Michelle, that by your comments you appear to have made up your mind! You have discounted may very detailed and well researched points and have really outdid yourself with your last response to proof 100. Why do you not answer his question? I thought you said “Please let’s try to remain civil and respectful. Personal attacks will not be tolerated.”
(1) There is already a lengthy discussion of the State Department aspect in the comments; I have no patience for people who don’t read what’s already written and wish to rehash it again — that, I find, is rude to me as the person who has to sift through all these comments that have *nothing* to do with what I wrote in the post. (2) Regarding making up my mind — as my mother always told me, you know what happens when you assume….
Michelle, you write:
“I just don’t get why they’d all (how many people had to be involved?!) risk their livelihoods and their lives for this. Again, though, human behavior is often unpredictable.”
In my opinion, this is a point on which intuition can be misleading and actual case studies are of more use. The granddaddy of all railroad jobs was the Dreyfus Affair, which tore French society asunder in the 1890s. At the time, many French citizens believed, intuitively, that their military leadership was honest and accountable, and they were furious at the political firebrands who they believed were traitors. But historians today have a much different slant. Here’s an article about the case written by a Professor Donald Wilkes (no relation):
http://www.law.uga.edu/academics/profiles/dwilkes_more/his9_jaccuse.html
Excerpt: “At the time of the arrest and trial the army officers responsible for the prosecution truly believed Dreyfus was guilty of the crime charged. By 1896, however, they knew they had made a catastrophic mistake. Nevertheless, high-ranking officers on the army’s General Staff and officers in military intelligence, fearful that public exposure of the injustice done Dreyfus would embarrass the army, engaged in a gigantic coverup which featured perjury, forgery, and obstruction of justice. The conspirators, including at least eight generals, even protected and assisted Commandant Ferdinand Esterhazy, the army infantry officer who, as they knew by 1896, had actually committed the crime for which Dreyfus had been wrongfully convicted.”
In Wenatchee, Washington, in the 1990s, a police detective investigated and charged dozens of people who were supposedly swapping their children around at sex parties. The town and its institutions supported him fully. One local judge wept openly in frustration over the outside meddlers who didn’t understand that Wenatchee was in the grip of a pedophile scourge. But now, virtually everyone accepts that the detective was a nut case who railroaded 18 innocent people into prison. He didn’t act alone. He had help at every level in the local bureaucracy and court system. Here’s a link:
http://www.historylink.org/index.cfm?DisplayPage=output.cfm&File_Id=7065
Why would so many people persecute innocent people and hound their children to concoct baseless criminal charges? It makes no sense, but it happened. It is perhaps better explained as a case of mass delusion rather than a conspiracy. Here is a more light-hearted example, from Seattle:
http://www.historylink.org/index.cfm?DisplayPage=output.cfm&File_Id=5136
Another case worth looking at is the Nicarico murder. There’s a book about that case called “Victims of Justice” that is now out in revised form (“Victims of Justice Revisited”) and has morphed over the years from true crime shocker to law school text.
A second excellent book is “The Wrong Guys” by Tom Wells and Richard Leo. It is about the mind-boggling case of the Norfolk Four, who were finally pardoned last year.
Talk about off-topic…seriously let’s try to at least stick in Italy.
I’ve not been sure if anti-Americanism played a roll or not. I haven’t heard that argument for a long time anyway. It is nice to read that many don’t think so. What would you give as an explanation for the way Amanda Knox was treated in the Italian press though ? It can’t be because people think she is guilty. The other two who were convicted were not treated this way by the press.
Is it because she is female ? That she had a sexual past and smoked pot ? All of the roommates did though. It would be nice to know why she was portrayed this way and very, very early in the investigation.
One guess may be all the leaks the prosecution dropped to the press. Many of those leaks were known to be untrue by the prosecution but leaked anyway. Most of them have been proven untrue but her image may have already been set in stone for people.
I’ll be talking about the media on Wednesday, Madi; thanks for coming by.
Michelle- To answer your question, or to clarify as you asked- Yes to hash out the off topics
Ok first on Judge Claudia Matteini being bias in the Knox case. Yes it is what she said, not just the fact she ruled against her. Amanda’s lawyers were not just being picky about what judge should try the slander case- Knox’s lawyers know this judge has preconcieved ideas about Amanda. This judge was the one who decided to hold Knox in prison pending the investigation and refused her house arrest- Ok no problem there- It was WHY she refused her house arrest and what she said about it. Judge Matteini is on record as saying that Knox was “uncontrollable” and the she “has shown no remorse” in the murder of Meredith. By saying that the judge clearly had Knox guilty before the investigation was over and before the trial even started. There were several other statements she made which I can not recall at the moment. I do remember she also said that Knox was a danger and this was very early in the case. I think she showed she was not impartial then and naturally Amanda’s lawyers would not want her sitting in on the slander case.
As to the State Dept/ Hillary Clinton not having all the info on the case- As I said before the Amanda Knox case is very complex. Unless the State Dept assigned someone to completely reinvestigate the case they would not have all the info necessary to make a good judgement. There is so much misinformation involved in this case one would have to spend a lot of time weeding through the lies and misinformation in order to get a fair picture. I believe it was CBS News that did hire an experienced private investigator to go to Italy and perform his own investigation of the Knox case which he found to be “a complete railroad job”. Has the State Dept done as much? I have no idea, but if they did they are keeping it to themselves. It is possible that the State Dept has already done something- but if so it was behind closed doors. In the beginning I thought Knox was guilty- I mean she looks guilty at first glance, but I decided to check things out for myself and dig deeply into this case. Now I believe she is innocent and feel nothing but sorrow for her and her family. But that’s just me- a lot of other people have yet to make up their minds and many others have her written her off as guilty because in my opinion they do not have all the facts- Like I said, too much misinformation floating around. However, Michelle, to get back on topic, I don’t think anti-American bias has anything to do with it. I bet you had no idea when you started this blog that all the warring factions involved with this case would come swooping down on you.
Sorry, we just disagree on both of these issues, particularly judging from the links provided below regarding the State Department.
Hi Michelle,
Nice post, well done!
Your position and summary corresponds to the US Department of State … multiple statement were issued shortly after the guilty verdict was rendered. You need to scroll down a bit through the links for completeness and context, but they essentially support your facts.
Nothing has been heard from Senator Cantwell since December of last year. I think we can well and truly put any thoughts of anti-Americanism to rest.
A) First, on December 5, 2009 Clinton was asked by George Stephanopolous if she had heard Senator Cantwell’s comments, Clinton appeared to be taken off-guard:
http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2009a/12/133217.htm
B) Next, on December 7, 2009, the DoS states they have been in regular contact with Knox’s family:
http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2009a/12/133272.htm
C) Then – most importantly – on December 10, 2009, spokesman Ian Kelly confirmed that the DoS has monitored the trial all along:
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2009/dec/133266.htm
A portion from this transcript:
QUESTION: Is it your belief that Amanda – excuse me, Amanda Knox was treated fairly under local law?
MR. KELLY: Well, I don’t have any indications to the contrary. I do know that our Embassy in Rome was very closely involved in this. They visited Amanda Knox. They have monitored the trial. They were present, I know, on Friday. Consular officers were present. I think at this point right now, it – the trial ended on Friday. We’re also looking ahead to the next step in this, which is an appeal. I guess she has 45 days to appeal her conviction to the court of appeals. And during this period, of course, consular officials will stay in close touch with her and with the family, and continue to monitor and provide assistance to both her and her family.
…
QUESTION: And just to define that, the next step with the appeal, what specifically does the U.S. or the Consular service do in terms of that appeal? Do they study it? They – you know, what concretely are they doing to analyze this?
MR. KELLY: Well, I think it’s our role as – our diplomatic role to ensure that American citizens are treated fairly and that they have access to appropriate legal counsel. And that will continue to be our role as this process plays out.
D) Lastly, on January 25, 2010, DoS has confirmed they had spoken with Senator Cantwell regarding her extraordinary claims on Anti-Americanism:
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2010/01/135793.htm
Hope this helps!
~Uncle
This helps a lot “Zio” (hah!), thanks; it also follows common sense, which says that if the State Department (Clinton) publicly says she’s following the case, it has already put itself out there. To *not* act in the fact of clear injustice at that point would be stupid and potentially politically damaging. I will say again — I am not saying that I believe Knox killed Kercher, but an independent observer should take all of these side issues as separate and then weigh them according to the weight they believe they deserve. For some, it may mean nothing at all that the State Dept hasn’t acted; for others, it may mean a lot. The facts, though, are what they are — they clearly followed this case and didn’t act. People (including me) can take that to mean or not mean what they will. Thanks again, Uncle.
Hi Michelle,
Great blog post. I have been wondering what your thoughts were on this case.
My first reaction when reading this post was – You have been living in Italy for 7 years now? Wow! Didn’t realize it has been that long.
But back to the subject of Anti-American bias. I have been following this case pretty closely since the murder took place. I have tried to read blog posts and articles from different countries to get different perspectives on the case. I never bought the Anti-American bias in the Italian Criminal Justice System as a reason for Amanda’s conviction. It seems to me that she and her family have been treated extremely well and if it truly was Anti-American bias in the Italian Criminal Justice System that convicted Amanda, well then as you stated, how do you explain Raffaele’s conviction?
I think people tend to forget or not realize that if you are in another country, you are bound be their laws and their justice system. I learned that when watching Midnight Express years ago, and I am in no way comparing the Italian Justice system to the Justice System of Turkey. I just think that people need to realize that every country has a right to follow their own legal procedures. It seems to me that many of the complaints are about how things are done differently in Italy. Well, Italy is not the US just as the US is not Italy.
I personally have leaned more toward thinking that Amanda and Raffaele are innocent but no one really knows what happened except the people in that house the night of the murder. The two things that have bothered me with the court case have been Mignini and his competence and the fact that the jurors were not sequestered, which meant that they were hearing and reading some of the media leaks and bias, although the bias could have gone both ways. There are however some things that still make me question the innocence of Amanda and Raffaele. The different stories, the accusation of Lumumba, the bleach being bought at the store early the following morning, although I can’t figure out how they could have wiped off all of their DNA and left all of Rudy Guede’s DNA at the scene.
The only thing that I really question so far about this case is how Rudy Guede was given a much shorter sentence on appeal (or during a hearing being held after he was convicted). It seems pretty obvious that he played a major part in this horrible murder from the evidence gathered.
As an American who has traveled to Italy since the murder took place, I never experienced any Anti-American bias, and as you stated, with Bush as president, I would not have been surprised to get that type of reaction.
I give you a lot of credit to open up this can of worms and to read through all of your comments. I tried to read most of them but some were just too long and rambling. World Cup?
Looking forward to your next segment.
girasoli
Well thanks for even trying to get through them! Actually someone did explain (I believe) how Guede’s sentence got reduced, and a lot of it has to do with the fact that he chose a “fast track” trial, which made him eligible for a percentage cut. I think Mignini’s presence has made a lot of people weary of this verdict indeed, although sequestering is one of those things that just isn’t part of Italy’s system; I’m not a huge believer that it really works anyway especially in this day and age in which information is *so* readily available. But yes, I can definitely understand that being a concern. And yes, the World Cup is over for Italy (and the US), just in case we weren’t clear on that
Michelle- We do not agree on both these issues? Well you know my stand so I guess you are saying that the things judge Matteini said about Amanda Knox is cool with you- Okey dokey.
As regards the State Dept- yes they sat in on the trial- that means nothing. It is the evidence presented at the trial that was off the wall and misleading. I also followed the trial and as a result thought Knox was guilty. It is only when one goes over the so-called evidence that one sees that the evidence is really faulty. That is the whole point to the Amanda Knox case. The evidence is smoke and mirrors- speculation- and the result of shoddy police work. Now how would the average State Dept employee from Rome sitting in on the trial know what was faulty and what was not? I thought you already knew that the State Dept people were in touch with Amanda and sat in on the trial- That is why I told you I did not think that state dept was going to be of much use. They saw nothing wrong but there was plenty wrong, that’s the whole point. This only means they did not take the time to go further and check out the evidence- They just witnessed the trial and came away with nothing much to say. What does this mean to you Michelle? That because some State Dept employee was in the courtroom that then everything must have been cool and she must have been guilty because they saw nothing wrong? I too followed the trial and she looked guilty due to the evidence as it was presented. The whole point is the evidence is NOT what it appears and how would the State Dept in Italy know that? Unless they dug into the details which I can tell you several of the posters here have including myself have. If this is all the State Dept is going to do is show up in court and talk with the family then the State Dept is of no use to Amanda. Like I said before this is a very complex case and most people are not going to put in the time necessary to come up with the truth. The State Dept’s presence in court was simply doing their job so that it looks like they are on top of things. I told you before that I do not think Hillary Clinton knows all the facts in this case and that is because she is relying on her people in Italy to provide her with info and I am pretty sure they did not do an investigation into anything- But just to be fair- could they have? They are in Italy and have no power to command anything of another country- they are diplomats not DNA experts or investigators. This is the big problem with the Amanda Knox case- People will just not take the time to dig deeper and think that because the State Dept saw nothing wrong than they think justice was served and I can assure you- justice was not served in Perugia last December. Now exactly where do you and I differ on this Michelle?
OK, to be perfectly clear, since apparently I wasn’t before: I’ve said all I’m going to say on both of these issues.
In regards to Judge Claudia Matteini being removed because she is predjudice against Amanda Knox,
In the June 2008 house arrest hearing the judge’s statements showed she thought :
1. That the murder was planned.
“The homicide of Meredith was certainly not an impulsive act. On the contrary, all of the small wounds with the last fatal one demonstrate cold calculation within the context of pre-planned conduct”
2. Meredith was killed out of boredom and enjoyment.
“the characteristics of which are clear signs of perversion demonstrated by a ‘strange’ enjoyment of her suffering.”
“Meredith was a girl full of life and enthusiasm, who –for the sole purpose of having some pleasure and sensation during a boring day spent smoking joints– was subject to acts of brutality and cruelty that are disgusting to any normal person.”
3. The murder was cold and calculated.
“You, together with Raffaele, were able to pretend to have called 112 faced with the accidental arrival of the Police, in order to build yourselves an ‘alibi’. This was cold and rational behavior, not at all consistent with the state of stress you say you were feeling because you had found this strange situation at home.”
4. Amanda Knox is guilty.
“you have never shown any sign of remorse or reconsideration of your life.”
How can it be claimed that Amanda Knox will get a fair shake with this judge. She said all these things even before trial. Everything she said was proven incorrect and yet she will judge Amanda Knox again.
Easy — she was judging a different case. This case is on slander. Just because a judge rules one way about a person on one matter doesn’t mean their opinion is personally clouded. It sure may be, and like I said, if I were Knox’s lawyers, I would’ve objected to it too — but I’m also not surprised this judge is still on the case. This is what judges are paid to do, i.e., put aside any personal bias and make judgments based on the law.
Michelle Wrote:
“Well thanks for even trying to get through them! Actually someone did explain (I believe) how Guede’s sentence got reduced, and a lot of it has to do with the fact that he chose a “fast track” trial, which made him eligible for a percentage cut. I think Mignini’s presence has made a lot of people weary of this verdict indeed, although sequestering is one of those things that just isn’t part of Italy’s system; I’m not a huge believer that it really works anyway especially in this day and age in which information is *so* readily available. But yes, I can definitely understand that being a concern. And yes, the World Cup is over for Italy (and the US), just in case we weren’t clear on that”
This is something we tend to hear a lot, outrage from Some Americans that the jury (they aren’t a jury anyway, but judges) weren’t sequestered. It seems to arise from what some believe to be an established major principle of law that juries must be sequestered and if they’re not a fair trial is impossible. The fact is, sequestering can actually lead to injustice and even in the US and UK where there was a culture of sequestering juries, many Americans seem to be unaware that they rarely do so now…it’s just not standard practice anymore. This article explains it quite well:
http://www.slate.com/id/2091241/
And really in any case, despite as you say it not being the culture in Italy to sequester, what are they supposed do, the trial lasted eleven months, are they supposed to lock the judges up for a whole eleven months? Isn’t it supposed to be the accused in jail, not the judges? And how is Judge Massei and his assistant judge supposed to try all their other cases if they’re locked up for eleven months? It’s completely impractical and unworkable.
Further to your discussion on State Department involvement in the case, here are some of the State Department cables concerning their involvement in the case:
http://historyanarchy.blogspot.com/2010/06/foxy-knoxy-unclassified-amanda-knox.html
Thanks for the links, Michael.