Honestly not sure of her innocence in this, but since Italy had such a vendetta against her and that disaster of a trial, I am glad it is over for everyone involved. I feel for the parents of the deceased, but hope the individual in jail is the right person and that gives them a little solice too.

virtually never does what it did -- vacate convictions without ordering new appeals trials.

And the court had the choice of two forms of "not guilty." They chose the more definitive one -- "did not do the crime" -- rather than the other option "not enough evidence to prove."

Since there was no physical evidence or witness linking Amanda to the crime room, all the police had were two written statements, that they obtained in the middle of the night after 50 hours of interrogation spread over four or five days with a person who barely spoke Italian. They thought they had found a hair of a black man on the victim, so that's who they were looking for. She was a suspect because she lived in the house, and they knew she had a black boss, Patrick, the bar owner. They could see in her cell phone that she had told him "see you later," and they took that expression literally. ("See you later" isn't used in Italian the way it is in English, as another way of saying goodbye.) They thought, against all reason, that she was planning to meet her black boss that night, even though the preceding conversation had been about how he was at the bar and he didn't need her to work there that night. She then turned off the phone because she didn't want to hear back from him in case he changed his mind. She went to Raffaele's, where a friend of Raffaele's saw them both less than an hour before the murder most likely occurred.

In Italy all interrogations by law are supposed to be videotaped. But the police, in an untaped middle-of-the-night tag-team interrogation, without food or water, insisted they knew she had been at the cottage and that Patrick had been there with her, until she was so tired and broken down and confused that they got her to sign a statement that said she "confusedly remembered" being in the kitchen with her hands over her ears, listening to screams while he and Meredith were in Meredith's bedroom. After a few hours sleep, Amanda asked to give another statement. In that one she said that her previous statement didn't seem real to her, and that the police should not rely on it, and that she didn't know what happened. But the police had already arrested Lumumba and made the announcement. By then they ALREADY had enough evidence to arrest the real murderer, the real burglar Guede, but they chose to keep Lumumba in jail instead -- for two weeks -- till he turned out to have an unimpeachable alibi witness. But they could have identified Guede two weeks earlier on the basis of his fingerprints in blood in the room, because his fingerprints were in their system as a result of multiple other burglaries he had carried out in the preceding months. Eventually they found out that his DNA also matched that left at the crime scene. (A huge remaining question: why hadn't they put Guede in jail after his earlier arrest? Why was he out there and able to murder Meredith?)

So all they had against Amanda was her DNA in the bathroom and other public spaces -- and everyone leaves DNA in their own home -- and two coerced statements, neither of which said she helped anyone murder Meredith. And they had plenty of evidence from the murder room connected to a man with a recent history of carrying out burglaries with a knife and breaking a window with a rock.

Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito been declared innocent for good reason and people should accept that verdict, no matter how uncomfortable that might make us with a system that would put two innocent students through hell for almost 8 years.

Unfortunately, the parents will have no solace because their attorney -- who stood to gain millions from his portion of the connected civil suit -- had convinced them of the students' guilt. They didn't even attend the first appeals trial where all the evidence for their innocence was clearly laid out. So they listened to the self-serving attorney and haven't been able to accept that the real murderer is the man who was sentenced to only 16 years and is already eligible for day-release.

From looking at the evidence, I'd say there's a slightly more than 50% chance she did it, but in the end they weren't able to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt, which is probably a good decision. There really were a number of mistakes made during collecting and examining of evidence. For all the talk if her being a victim of the Italian system, I think if this had taken place in the US, they would have been able to get a guilty verdict.

In a strange way, justice was served through this whole bizarre process. She didn't get off scot-free, she did serve 4 years. On the other hand, she didn't get 25 years, which would have been very harsh given the problems with the evidence and the case in general. And it seems like her life is going well now.

I can understand why the Kercher family may not be satisfied with this, but the way the system is supposed work, is that "probably guilty" people don't get imprisoned, only "definitely guilty" people do, and that's a good thing.


On edit: before people start calling me a "Knox Truther" or "guilter" or whatever, this is just my personal opinion, and I definitely don't think that any trial should be decided based on what I think after a day or two of googling. I respect the court's decision, they know a lot more about the case than I do.

The Italian courts let the murderer skate.

Rudy Guede was found guilty and is serving a 16 year prison term.

16 years is a dance.

Yes, arguably 16 years is light, I think it was originally 25, and got reduced for some reason, which I don't know what it is. IIRC, he was convicted of being one of the people involved in the murder, and I'm not sure it was proved that he was the one who actually delivered the fatal stab.

There seems to be evidence that there was someone else there besides him, although not enough evidence to prove that it was Amanda and her boyfriend. The unflushed toilet is really weird.

Rudy Guede had a habit of hanging around. This was one of three break-ins in the previous two months. He was never jailed - leading to the speculation that he was some kind of informant for the police, but that was just more tabloid gossip, imo. In at least one of his prior break-ins, he hurled a rock through a window, waited to see if anyone came to the window, and then entered the house through that second floor window.

While on the toilet, Meredith comes home, surprises him, he comes out of the toilet, rapes her, and then runs away, not bothering to steal anything because he's freaked out about the murder and wants to get away as fast as possible.

Do we know if the latest decision stated that Rudy acted alone? Or just that Amanda and her boyfriend were innocent. My understanding was that the "official" story was that Rudy was one of multiple attackers, and if that's true, it leaves a big question as to who the other one or ones were. Maybe some fourth person?

To add: part of the argument about Amanda's guilt is based on the reasoning that if there was someone other than Rudy, it was likely her, because nobody with access to the apartment was in town at the time. Unless there were two break-ins at the same time, which doesn't seem to likely.

Again, while I think the Italian court tiered system is long and drawn out, I also think it could be fairer than our system.

The devil is in the details, though.

When Rudy Guede opted for a fast track "trial" and pleaded "no contest" he actually pleaded to many stipulations - some of which were that he placed Knox and Sollecito at the crime scene.

Once a court rubber stamps his "no-contest plea" and all the stipulations, those stipulations become "Judicial Truth."

This is regarded as fact in all subsequent trials, including Knox and Sollecito's trial. They could never contest the multiple attacker theory in their own trial or in Guede's trial, nor did they have to right to compel him to testify in their own trial. Guide was "done." Finito!

This is one of the reasons why I thought the European Court would set aside the verdict or send it back down. Shouldn't we all have a right to face our accusers?

Basically, they never had a presumption of innocence.

He knew that his DNA and fingerprints placed him at the scene, so he acknowledged being there and claimed he and Meredith were involved in voluntarily sexual activity. But he insisted that unnamed others did the deed while he was in the bathroom. It was a year later that he finally said the unnamed others were Amanda and Raffaele -- when he had something to gain by signing the stipulations in the fast track trial agreement.

The police were claiming that a strong, young man with a knife couldn't have killed an unarmed petite young woman -- because she'd had some self-defense lessons. Which is patently ridiculous -- murders like this happen all the time. The police provided experts at the first trial who differed on the question of whether more than one attacker was involved. But anyone with common sense realizes that a larger, athletic young man with a knife is capable of single-handedly overpowering a young woman.

And please don't tell me there were 40 knife wounds and that proves more than one attacker. It doesn't. But there were only 9 actual knife wounds. The rest of the 40 were bruises and scratches -- about what you would expect in a very violent fight to the death. Rudy also had a cut hand that was visible to the police days later.

Access to the apartment was easily gained through a window, and there was evidence that a rock had been thrown through a window and that's how Guede got entry. If he had an accomplice -- and there is no evidence that he did -- then Guede could have let the accomplice in. Or the accomplice could have followed him in (but why do that when Guede could have opened the door?)

But as for the rest, you know as well as I do that everything you are saying is contested. There is evidence that the break-in was faked, for example the glass on top of the clothes. I wonder if they asked Filomena whether she had left her clothes on the floor or if they were neatly arranged before the incident. Seems like an important question, right?

There are arguments on both sides of the wound/self-defense thing. There's also the argument about stab wounds from both sides. Having no experience with violent attacks or analyzing wounds, again I am in the position of trying to figure out what experts think and why they think what they think. And the opinions don't seem to be unanimous on this.

some people don't always hang their clothes up. Big deal.

Read the Hellman report on why there was no faked burglary. There was an actual burglary. Money and cell phones were stolen.

leaving her clothes on the floor or hanging them up. Maybe she doesn't remember, but I think that would be a good question to ask her, particularly if they are going to use that to argue that the burglary was faked. If they didn't ask that, that's one more of the many flaws with the investigation, IMO.

It is much more likely to me -- and to Judge Hellman -- that she just didn't want to admit to being messy and didn't realize the consequences of telling the honest truth. By the time she did, it would have gotten her into trouble to change her story.

But there is no logical reason Amanda and Raffaele would have faked a burglary using Guede's MO. They didn't know he was a burglar or that he had an MO. But he did. He had already used rocks to break into at least two other places through windows.

Why would they fake a burglary -- in order to point suspicion at a burglar -- if they had an accomplice they knew was a burglar and could identify them?

Why would they use Guede's MO if they wanted to point suspicion at a different burglar? The front door lock didn't work well. Why didn't they just make it look like a burglar came in through the front door?

The person who was FAR more likely to use Guede's burglary MO was Guede himself. Any other idea is just convoluted.

I enjoy these discussions with you, thanks for keeping it civil, and hope I haven't been condescending or abrasive. I respect your opinion and your knowledge, I just have some different opinions.

But in the end, nobody should care about my opinion, all that matters is that the court said she and her boyfriend are innocent and they are free to live the rest of their lives.

Cheers.

I hope you and others stop questioning Amanda's innocence, however. I know that the prosecutors and much of the media spent years trying to cast doubt, but this young woman deserves not to have to live the rest of her life under a cloud of suspicion.

Imagine what it would be like to know you are innocent but that to many people you will always be a "marked woman."

My cheerful, helpful kids turned into slobs for some of their teen years, and I'm pretty sure that they did a good cleanup before I ever entered their dorm rooms! LOL

though I knew bout her testimony. Wow. Did she testify at any of the trials, do you know?

Sixteen years is nothing. Rudy Guede can soon get out and murder again.

Why this happened is one of the many things about the Italian legal system that I don't understand. Amanda, of course, is now free, so neither of them ended up serving their whole sentence.

And he got more time off for good behavior.

sentence in exchange for his fast track plea agreement that required him to stipulate to his presence, along with the students, at the murder.

with prosecutors, etc. Again, I don't have any personal experience with any criminal justice system in either country, but that's what I've heard. You know, like in the TV shows, where they say stuff like "seven years, out in three." Or maybe that's all fiction.

to question Guede at their own trial -- even though his statement and his stipulations were entered into the evidence in their trial. The judge and prosecutors wouldn't allow his evidence to be disputed.

That never happens here when one defendant fingers another. One of our fundamental rights is supposed to be the right to question your accusers. And that's supposed to be a right in Italy, too.

Although I did come across transcripts of Rudy being question by one of Knox's attorneys. Maybe that was faked, since it appeared on one of the anti-Knox sites, but it wasn't a description of questioning, it was an actual transcript. Who knows.

that all it showed was that Rudy REFUSED TO TESTIFY?

If you don't believe me, then use "Google Translate." There is no question that he didn't testify. The document you call a transcript records him saying that he chooses not to talk.

Here's the testimony I'm referring to. He seems to be being asked why he wrote a certain note, and the defense attorney is questioning its accuracy.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026411594#post172

Last edited Sat Mar 28, 2015, 03:38 PM - Edit history (1)

That same link you just gave me is to the Hellman report, where it explains what was going on in the transcript you just linked to. A jailhouse snitch had claimed that Guede had confessed to him, and Guede was disputing that. That's all that discussion pertained to. But Guede was never questioned about the murder itself in connection with Amanda and Raffaele's trial.

From Judge Hellman's report:

https://hellmannreport.wordpress.com/contents/reasons-for-the-decision/statements-of-rudy-guede-2/

As surprising as it may seem, Rudy Guede has never been questioned during the present trial about the facts that occurred on the night between 1st and 2nd November 2007 on Via Della Pergola: neither previously under C.P.P. Article 210, nor afterwards under C.P.P Article 197 bis, so that, regardless of his reliability or otherwise, no statements exist in this capacity concerning the main facts of the trial.

The first time that Rudy Guede appeared before the Corte di Assise during the criminal proceedings against Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito was only when, after having seen the defense of the accused admit to this Court as witnesses Mario Alessi and other prisoners, in relation to what was revealed to them in prison by Rudy Guede about the two defendants’ [Knox and Sollecito] non-involvement [estraneità] in the act of the crimes for which they have been charged [chiamati a rispondere], the General Prosecutor requested that he be heard as a rebuttal witness [a prova contraria] on such alleged disclosures [confidenze]. The General Prosecutor, it should be said, did not request the admission of Rudy Guede so that he could respond regarding the facts of that night (if he was alone or together with the defendants or with others, what was the real unfolding of events in its details, etc…) but only to prove that he had not made to Mario Alessi and the other fellow prisoners any disclosure [confidenza].

Despite the admission of Rudy Guede as a witness limited to such facts (alleged disclosures in prison), the defense tried, given the presence finally of Rudy Guede at a hearing (hearing of 6.27.2011) before the Court and the defendants, to ask some questions directly regarding the facts of that night and not only concerning the alleged disclosures made to fellow prisoners.

But, in truth, even before the same Rudy Guede could assert that he did not want to respond on the facts of that night, the attorney that represented the aforementioned [Guede], Ms. Saccarelli, and the General Prosecutor (even if, having spoken off-microphone, his words are not found in the transcripts), to which the lawyer for the civil party Maresca gave full support, reminding [the court] of the limits of the cross-examination, they objected to the formulation of questions concerning directly the facts that occurred that night rather than merely the interactions [rapporti intrattenuti] with Alessi and the other prisoners, called to testify (Castelluci, De Cesare, Trincia).

for a crime she didn't do. There is loads of evidence for the actual killer. The murderer is currently in prison.

Meredith Kercher probably walked in on Rudy Guede, who had broken into her cottage. It was Rudy Guede's MO to throw rocks into windows, and if no one responds, Rudy Guede would enter through the broken window. At least one time shortly before he murdered Meredith Kercher, Rudy Guede had stayed in the building. That indicates he could potentially be very dangerous:

I don't really have strong opinions, but I do think it's a very interesting and strange case for a lot of reasons. So many things don't add up. Unflushed toilet? Bloody bare footprint that seems to not match Rudy and shows up only once? Bloody shoeprints in the hall but not in the room? No semen inside the victim but semen on the bed? DNA on the bra strap but nowhere else. Random knife in Raffaele's house has the victim's DNA on the blade? Amanda doing the false confession/accusation? And so on.

And then all the emotions tied up with it on both sides. The sheer amount of detail and effort that has gone into the pro-guilt and pro-innocence websites out there.

Lots of material. I was discussing the case with some friends last night. The only real conclusion is that it's all very weird.

and he didn't want her to hear him flush it. Because then she would know he was there. Why does this seem so mysterious?

The bloody footprint was just a smear. It didn't fail to match Rudy's -- it looked more like his than Sollecito's, but it was just a smear.

There were bloody shoe prints of Guede's found in the murder room.

They found Guede's DNA in the victim's body. They also found semen on the pillow under her hips. They never tested it but apparently he ejaculated outside of her body.

Raffaele's DNA on the bra clasp but nowhere else was due to contamination. There is a videotape 46 days after the murder of the police -- all wearing latex gloves -- picking it up from the floor and passing it from one visibly dirty pair of gloves to another. They didn't change their gloves between rooms, so they most likely picked up a bit of Raffaele's DNA from the door handle or another part of the cottage.

The random knife from Amanda's kitchen was NOT proven to have Meredith's DNA on it -- only Amanda's DNA on the handle. That was discounted by the two forensic experts from the University of Rome, who said that the DNA that could have been a partial match to Meredith ( the amount was too small to measure) was the result of contamination.

All of this "evidence" turns out to be just smoke and mirrors, that the police used to deceive people like you.

Yes, they went above and beyond the usual "there wasn't enough evidence to convict."

I posted the AP link to the story in another thread. The court's written opinion will be available in about 90 days.

I respect the court's decision, they know a lot more about it than me. It seems to me that she is probably guilty, but that's all, and there's no reason anyone should care what I think. Either way, I don't think she's any kind of menace to society or monster or whatever, if she did do it, it was a momentary lapse into craziness. I hope everyone involved can get passed this now and go on with their lives.

you. Fortunately, the Court had access to much more information than that. And they chose the stronger of the two possible not-guilty verdicts: the one that means "did not commit the crime" instead of the one that means "not enough evidence to prove."

If the police hadn't bungled the investigation, they never would have entered the contaminated bra clasp or the kitchen knife into evidence. The kitchen knife was too big to fit half the wounds, and the bra clasp contained enough alleles to show that several men had touched it. (Finding a match to Raffaele's DNA was like picking out the letters in his name in a bowl of alphabet soup.) If they hadn't coerced Amanda into the statements, they wouldn't have had them to use against her.

but he doesn't seem to be responding.

As the mom of two daughters (27 and 18), I know why the bra clasp was contaminated with RS's (and others' DNA). Her bra was exposed and touched by the men during a hug, or any of the other affectionate gestures typical of Italian men. I'm guessing RS gave Meredith Kercher a welcome hug and touched her bra during it.

My daughters are completely oblivious to their bra straps, cups and back clasps being exposed - tank tops, spaghetti straps, racer backs, a low swooping back line - they consider the bra underneath as part of the outfit.

I'm sure you've seen plenty of young women with their bras exposed with spaghetti straps or tanks etc. it's been this way for at least a decade or more. Madonna popularized that look and it's only become more popular and normalized ever since.

Yes, RS giving her a hug is a very plausible explanation as to why the DNA was there. We'd then have to see whether he had any contact with her, whether it was since she last washed the bra, and so on. I'm pretty sure the defense brought this up, and my thinking is that if the court decided to accept the evidence after hearing this and all the other arguments for plausible contamination, then it probably wasn't contaminated.

Of course, the court didn't actually decide that, which is new evidence since yesterday. But then, two courts before that did. And one other one didn't. That's what makes it muddled. Based on the totality of the evidence, including the court decisions, I think that the DNA is still a valuable piece of evidence, although certainly not absolute.

If she had a boyfriend, it would be odd that the strongest DNA sample would be from Raf and not the boyfriend, right? The existence of other DNA isn't really the issue, it's whether Raf had had any contact with her that could explain it.

the Independent experts, that they could have found Sollecito's DNA in it, along with several other men. In fact, there was so much they could have found ANY RANDOM MAN's DNA in it, which is why they said they could have found the Judge's DNA in it.

It isn't true that the "strongest sample" came from Raffaele. What is true is that his DNA is the only male sample, other than Meredith's boyfriend, that they tried to match it with. But after they pulled his out there were still a lot of unaccounted-for alleles, that could have come from almost anyone.

If you're trying to be informed, you should stop reading themurderofmeredithkercher, or TrueJustice, or perugiamurderfiles. All those are hate sites that have been proven to contain many lies. You're not doing yourself a favor by not even attempting to distinguish between hate-sites and sites with collections of accurate information. (The hate sites do have some collections of primary case documents. Those are fine. But their own analysis is what is deeply flawed. You can read the primary case documents somewhere else, if they suck you into reading their lies.)

Why should you trust the sites set up by Amanda's supporters? You shouldn't. Not automatically. You should consider the credentials of the people who set up the sites and have contributed articles.Many of them are scientists, or former investigators, who got involved when they saw how science was being misused in this case. And they've been donating their time to the cause because they were trying to help right a gross injustice.

And now even the Italian justice system has agreed with them -- in the most categorical terms possible. Amanda and Raffaele were not involved in the murder of Meredith Kercher. Period.

They said it was due to contamination, as a result of the bra clasp being kicked around the floor over the course of 46 days. They said there were enough alleles on the bra clasp to find the DNA of several men, including Raffaele.They said there was so much contamination they could have found a match for the JUDGE in the alleles.

Finding a match for Raffaele in all those alleles was like finding a match for the letters in his name in a bowl of alphabet soup.

i only offered up the typical young woman's sartorial choices these days for why the bra clasp having RS's (and others') DNA is so weak.

But that's all the time I spent on it, and now that it's over, that's probably all I will spend. At this point it's a bit like arguing over the JFK assassination.

It seems like a complicated case, and justifiable opinions can go either way. For example, in Italian courts, there were two innocent and two guilty decisions. And the internet is full of people who seem absolutely sure one way or the other. The only thing that I can say for sure is that it's a very strange case.

Yes, I agree that the Court's opinion should carry more weight than mine. Obviously. In fact, based on the fact that the court decided she was innocent, I am now more convinced of her innocence than I used to be, since like you said, they had all the info and thought about it a lot more than I did. In fact, I stated as much yesterday -- internet opinions are fun, but the courts are more qualified for this kind of thing.

However, much of the internet information and people responsible for leading the claim of Amanda's innocence are from the Injustice Anywhere group, former FBI agents, forensic experts in this country, and Europe, and so on.

The guilters, on the other hand, were led by some real creeps who even made threats against folks who disagreed with them. They seemed less concerned with Meredith Kercher's violent death, than with some real sick obsession with Knox. Sollecito - a footnote. Guide - who's he?

Peter Quenelle comes to mind.

Taken from an article in Time, by Nina Burleigh

"After a month in Italy doing reporting, however, I realized that some of the “facts” on Quennell’s website didn’t seem to be in the police record in Italy. I emailed him to ask where he had found out that Knox and Sollecito met police standing outside the murder house with a mop and bucket in hand. That damning incident was nowhere in the record, not even the prosecutor would confirm it, nor had Italy’s Polizia Scientifica ever tested such items, which would surely have offered up some useful DNA evidence, had they been used to clean blood.

Quennell then accused me by email of being on the Knox family payroll, informed me that his sources in Perugia had seen me consorting with Amanda’s mother (I had in fact met with her once, in a public place, by then) and eventually started writing about how he was going to “train his scope” on my apartment in Manhattan, and closing emails with “how are the kiddies?”

http://world.time.com/2013/03/29/the-amanda-knox-haters-society-how-they-learned-to-hate-me-too/

At this point, it's like arguing about the JFK assassination. In fact, it was always like that, because the internet was never going to decide the case anyway.

Still, it is a very strange case. Again, I got interested in this only recently, I guess I'm a "semi-guilter" because I sort of think she's guilty, but I also think nobody should care what I think, for me it's just kind of a puzzle.

something one could never have with the the folks obsessed with "foxy knoxy."

When really nothing points to her and everything points to Rudy Guede. You are trying to find facts that support your feeling, but the real curious thing is, why do you have that feeling? You say you only got interested in the case recently, but why is that, and did you really enter your iinvestigation with an open mind?

This is the puzzle I wonder about: Does foxy Knoxy touch a nerve in you?

And now that I've seen how ugly Italian justice can be, I won't be making any trips there any time soon!

considered fair (in some ways better than our own), but the devil is in the details. Ya' know?

As I understand it, Knox is out of danger now, and that's a good thing. Nobody should live under perpetual threat of more trials, more appeals, etc. Even a guilty person.

My hunch is Knox participated in the murders somehow. But that's not enough to convict a person and send her to jail for 28 years. Her situation is a lot like that of OJ Simpson. Common sense would tell you he killed his ex-wife, but "not guilty" was the correct verdict. I get the same feeling about Amanda Knox.

He tried to escape to Mexico, leading the police on a televised high-speed car chase.

What did Amanda do? Though all the other roommates and Meredith's friends immediately got out of Perugia -- so they wouldn't have to be involved -- Amanda stayed behind to try to help the police. Even though she had an aunt in Germany begging her to leave and stay with her.

And OJ had a history of assaulting his wife -- which was documented with color photos. Amanda had no record of ever hurting anyone, and she hadn't so much as registered a verbal complaint about her roommate.

And why is OJ in jail now? Because he hired thugs to go with him to strong-arm someone else out of memorabilia he thought he was entitled to.

I don't know why you have the feeling you do about Amanda Knox, but her situation couldn't be more different than OJ's -- as anyone who knew her in Seattle will tell you.

http://www.seattlemet.com/news-and-profiles/articles/seattle-prep-amanda-knox-1210

THE LETTERS THAT APPEAR in Kris Johnson’s mailbox every month are as puzzling as anything else in this story full of puzzling things. The envelopes bear smiley faces inside of hearts and heart-shaped peace signs ringed with sunflower petals. The words aren’t so much written as drawn—the dots above the i ’s open circles instead of finite points—suggesting the author playfully danced the pen across the paper’s surface. Not exactly mail one expects from a prison inmate, especially one convicted of murder. Johnson keeps the letters, 11 so far, in a red folder on which she has written, in black marker, “Amanda Knox.”

The Seattle Preparatory School teacher had gone years without hearing that name until it was spoken during a faculty meeting in November 2007. And even then it took a moment for the name to register. The school president had been besieged by reporters, particularly the British press, in response to an event half a world away. And so a meeting was called: Teachers, if anyone inquires about Amanda Knox or asks about the murder, don’t say a word.

Johnson, a 30-year teaching veteran, doesn’t watch television. And in the midst of grading student essays she’d missed the newspaper coverage about the Seattle Prep high school alum and University of Washington student living in Italy during her junior year abroad. Amanda Knox? Murder? She called up the memory of the bright student in her AP English class. It didn’t make sense. “I went back and read some of what had been reported,” Johnson says. In articles with headlines like “Student Murdered After Refusing to Take Part in Sex” and “The Twisted World of Foxy Knoxy,” the teacher learned that her star pupil had been arrested for the homicide of her roommate in the medieval Italian village of Perugia. Investigators speculated that the victim perished during a Knox-led orgy or satanic ritual.

“Amanda was a person who went out of the way to be kind to other people,” Johnson thought. “How in the world could this be the same person?”

The question would puzzle others affiliated with Seattle Prep—faculty, Knox’s fellow students, and their parents. The answer most of them came to, and what they decided to do with that answer, would put the school in the crosshairs of local and international scrutiny. The school held fundraisers for Knox’s legal defense fund and wrote letters on her behalf to President Obama. A King County judge—a parent of one of Knox’s classmates—put his job on the line to defend her. And an Italian prosecutor, 6,000 miles away, scratched his head at Seattle Prep’s audacity.

SNIP

Who believe in just a "hunch" that she's guilty, when she's been completely exonerated.

That's pretty crappy.

Amanda Knox doesn't have to live with people like me. She was cleared by the Italian judicial system, so nobody can claim she's guilty of anything. The circumstantial evidence, which is pretty flimsy, suggests she was involved to some degree in whatever went on. My point is, even though I think she was involved somehow, that's not good enough to say she's guilty, or we know she did it, or anything else. But we can still have our doubts, and we are free to express them.

and that many of them are like you, with vague feelings that she's guilty "to some degree."


She talks about what that's like for her in this interview.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/07/amanda-knox-guilty-verdict-meredith-kercher

and exactly the type of person she'll have to deal with for the rest of her life.

You ARE free to express those doubts but it only makes you look ignorant and uninformed.

And worse.

BOISE, Idaho (KBOI) - Boise State professor Greg Hampikian said he's relieved to see the Italian Supreme Court overturn the murder conviction of Amanda Knox. His DNA work helped free her the first time.

Hampikian contests that Italian Police set the bar too low for collecting DNA at the crime scene.

"This low amount of DNA that was used against Amanda which we have said all along was a spurious result," Hampikian said. "Probably contamination. Totally unreliable."

Hampikian proved there were issues with using such tiny amounts of DNA. He had grad students wear gloves to collect soda cans from staff members in the dean's office at Boise State University.

http://www.kboi2.com/news/local/BSU-professor-DNA-Amanda-Knox-297869731.html