Amanda Knox Revisited

Amanda Knox Revisited

Saturday, August 6th, 2011

Hoo- boy, here we go again. This is kind of a long post but I hope you’ll stick with it and find it interesting.

When I wrote a post not long ago about Amanda Knox I was fascinated by the case but found that it was really hard to get a handle on it because there really were a lot of details and all that I could find on the web were relatively brief articles that were generally heavily slanted. They were either heavily in favor of Amanda’s guilt or equally in favor of her innocence. So I did decided that I would buy the two books that I mentioned in that post. I found 7 books on about the case. I researched them all and came to the conclusion that the two most useful books were the ones by Barbie Latza Nadeau and by Candace Dempsey. The one by Nadeau is titled “Angel Face: The True Story of Student Killer Amanda Knox”. Just reading the title you pretty much know where Ms. Nadeau is coming from. I read this one first. Many of the facts are understandably the same in both books since they are a matter of record. The Nadeau book puts a great deal of emphasis on the impressions of Amanda as a person and how she comported herself. In my opinion she gives far to little weight to the actual evidence in the case. The book by Dempsey, “Murder in Italy” is generally more thorough and certainly is more sympathetic to Amanda.

Let me just back up here a little bit and give a brief synopsis of the crime for anyone who has missed this. A 21 year old British student, Meredith Kercher, was killed with a knife in her bedroom in Perugia on November 1 2007. There were no witnessed to the killing and no murder weapon found. There were feces in a bathroom toilet that had not been flushed, a bloody hand print on a pillow in the bedroom where the murder occurred and there were bloody footprints of the sole of an athletic show in the same room. There was also physical evidence of sexual contact between Meredith and a man who would later be found guilty. The accused were Amanda Knox and her Italian boyfriend of a week Raffaele Sollecito. A third man was initially accused (and in fact indicted) and later released. Finally a fourth by the name of Rudy Guede was charged and convicted. Rudy was clearly in the apartment at the time of the murder. The feces matched his DNA, the hand-print matched his and pubic hair and DNA inside Merideth matched his. He had no alibi and flimsy and often changed explanation of the events. He was found guilty. It certainly doesn’t seem like there is any injustice there.

There was no physical evidence that placed Amanda and Raffaele at the murder scene. Neither of their shoes matched the footprint and their fingerprints were not in the room where the murder occurred.  The couple did not have a solid alibi other than being with one another. To an astonishing degree the prosecution case came down to he character of Amanda in particular as well as two pieces of physical evidence. One of these was a kitchen knife from Raffaele’s apartment (where the couple say they spent the night). There was a speck of DNA on the knife blade that was identified as matching the murder victim. This speck was so small that the DNA testing equipment warned that it was insufficient for reliable test results and since there was only that one speck , the test could never be repeated. In addition two experts for the defense concluded that the knife in question was too large to be compatible with the wounds that killed Meredith. Raffaele’s DNA, again a minute amount, was found on Meredith’s bra clasp, which had been cut off. Not only was this amount of DNA again too small for any repeat testing but the clasp itself was left kicking around the room for an incredible 47 DAYS before being retrieved and tested. It had moved several feet from where it is shown in initial photos of the crime scene and was found underneath the bed.

So back to the books. As I mentioned the Nadeau book focuses on lifestyle and personality, principally of Amanda and really admits that the physical evidence is weak. It’s not that the lifestyle was shocking other than a 20 year old was sexually active andAngel Face Cover
smoked marijuana occasionally. Still, I get the impression that she has something in for both Amanda and her family. Even the back cover description mentions that the family’s “heavy handed efforts to control media coverage” backfired and was offensive to the Italians. All the while the Italian and British press – the British tabloid press in particular is incredibly nasty – jeopardized the case. I get the impression that guilt or innocence for her is based on a hunch and a visceral dislike of the Knox family. She is described as Italian- American and has reported from Rome for 14 years. She seems to have adopted a rather loose logical attitude toward truth and fiction; guilt and innocence. All-in-all I did not find her book at all convincing. She is ready to have Amanda spend the next 25 year behind bars for having an inadequate “bella figura” and for having a family trying too hard help her avoid that fate.

Candace Dempsey is also Italian-American but is based in Amanda’s hometown of Seattle. As I mentioned she is far more sympathetic to Amanda and also seems much more thorough in her research. She doesn’t seem to leave out any of the factsMurder in Italy that Nadeau mentions but does include others that Nadeau seems to have left out. So I have to consider if they were left out of Nadeau’s book because she didn’t know about them or they didn’t support her case. Neither option reflects well on Nadeau. Of course perhaps Demspey made them up but given how she reported everything else and it matched up with Nadeau then I discount that possibility. My conclusion is that Amanda and Raffaele are innocent. Certainly they go together in their innocence or guilt and there is simply not any credible evidence placing them at the crime scene. There is no clear motive for the killing, certainly not for Amanda and her boyfriend. The prosecutor in the case wove a story of revenge for conflict between Amanda and her roommate Meridith but nobody else would confirm conflicts. He continued his tale that a part of this revenge involved a group sex game that turned violent which is also quite an improbable tale. There is physical evidence that the convicted Rudy did have sexual contact with Meredith on that evening and maybe things turned ugly in their encounter.

One telling bit of information from the Dempsey book came from an ABC news interview by one of the 8 jurors, The quote from the juror is “It is hard to envision Knox doing this. But it is possible.” Possible!  Well lot of things are possible but locking two people away for 25 years because it is in the universe of possibilities seems a poor approach to justice. A lot has been written during this controversial trial about the Italian justice system. Some of which I think is totally justified. The jury, for instance, is composed of two judges and 6 citizen jurors. The jury is not sequestered and is free to get all kinds of information from outside sources, TV, internet, newspapers, tabloids – perhaps conversations with friends for all I know. Of course we all know how clean many of those sources of information are and how closely they stick to facts – yeah, right. Civil proceedings can run concurrently with criminal proceedings in the same courtroom and this was the case in the trial of Amanda and Raffaele. One questionable statement from Amanda during a police interrogation during several early morning hours without benefit of legal advice and no record of the questioning (no video tape, no recording, no transcript) was thrown out for the criminal trial. However this same statement was available for display to the same jury during the concurrent civil trial. It makes no sense whatsoever.

By the way, that inadmissible statement is the one thing about the case that most bothers me. In it Amanda said that she was at the apartment with her boss from the club where she worked occasionally in the evenings. Why she did this is extremely mysterious. He was totally cleared and had an airtight alibi (although that didn’t stop the Italians from initially indicting him) so she couldn’t have been there with him. What was going on? Fatigue, suggestions from aggressive interrogators which acted like a pack of animals in their interrogation technique. That is the one mystery in my mind but since it could not have happened as written (by the police) in the statement then I can’t believe that only the part of her being there is true. So it remains a mystery. Will these two stay in prison?

Late breaking news. The latest appeal of Amanda and Raffaele is currently in full swing and independent experts have testified that there is probable contamination through handling with a dirty glove. Stay tuned. If she is exonerated then it will probably merit at least a small item on the front page of major U.S. newspapers.

21 Responses to “Amanda Knox Revisited”

  1. Kurt Williams Says:

    The question you mention of why did Amanda implicate Patrick Lumumba is key. I have read that her implicating an innocent man is the number one reason those in Italy who find her guilty do so.

    On the night beginning November 5th at around 11:00pm, Amanda Knox, who had had just 2-3 hours of sleep each of the prior nights and had spent most of the previous 80 hours at the police station, was led into an interrogation. Exhausted, she was questioned by up to 12 interrogators in tag-team fashion, a third-world technique where two interrogators at a time pressure a suspect. Although Edgardo Giobbi, the chief investigator, stated later that he knew she was involved in the murder the afternoon before the interrogation, her interrogation was not recorded in any way as required by Italian law when interrogating suspects. The interrogation became more and more aggressive during the first two hours, but Amanda stuck to her story that although she smoked marijuana the night of the murder, she was sure she stayed with Raffaele and never left that night to return to the apartment where Meredith was killed. They told Amanda that since her last text message on the night of the murder was sent to her boss and finished with “See you later”, Amanda must have planned to meet Patrick later that night. She rejected this view, saying that “See you later” was just a friendly American phrase meaning “I’ll see you in the future”. The police, knowing Amanda’s mother would arrive the next morning from Seattle and that their boss said Amanda was involved in the murder, pulled out all the stops. They told an intimidated and exhausted Amanda that although she smoked marijuana that night, they knew she was lying about not remembering events of that night and that if she didn’t tell the truth, she would go to jail for thirty years and would never see her family. During this interrogation, they denied Amanda’s request for an attorney, saying that would only hurt her case. They also told her two lies, that they had absolute proof of her presence at the apartment during the murder and that they knew her boss, Patrick Lumumba, whom she texted, had committed the murder. She struggled with this view. Then they told her to “imagine” what she would have done if/while being in the apartment while Patrick murdered Meredith. Experts in coerced confessions say that at this point in such an interrogation, the suspect will tell the interrogators virtually anything they want to hear to end the terror of the interrogation. Amanda broke and fed their story back to them. Terrified and exhausted, Amanda said she faintly imagined being in the kitchen with her hands over her ears to block out Meredith’s screams while Patrick committed the murder. The interrogators rushed to have this typed up in Italian for Amanda to sign and to repeat in the prosecutor’s presence. It is important to note that in addition to breaking Italian laws requiring videotaping the interrogation, allowing legal representation to a suspect, allowing an impartial translator (not a poorly trained police officer) and possibly allowing consular contact, the interrogators would not allow her to take a bathroom break or have anything to drink. After a bathroom break, something to drink and some sleep, Amanda recanted her “confession” in a note to police which can be found on the internet.

    I also agree with your assessment of Barbie Nadeau’s reporting – she doesn’t make a very convincing argument given the title of her book points directly at “Student Killer Amanda Knox”.

  2. Joe Says:


    Both books in almost the same way about details of this critical interrogation of Amanda. She was dog tired to begin with, that she was hounded by a team, a “pack” as I described” who were increasingly aggressive in their interrogation and probably hit her with something more than once. They threatened her as you say. I can surely imagine that the bogus confession happened in exactly the way that you describe. I don’t recall exactly from either book that there was the presumption of guilt on part of one or more interrogators. In fact this is probably the case in lots of criminal interrogations. The key point is that they did not follow clearly defined procedures to record the interrogation. That’s one of the things that makes it seem such a stinking part of the whole police process. The Dempsey book went into quite a lot of detail about the police crowing about “breaking” Amanda and then doing a victory lap through the city (quite unusual) to show their pride in having corralled a suspect and presumably making themselves look better. There have been proven instances of the same kind of police posturing and covering their asses in this country as well but I like to think that we have better legal protections and processes than those that saw Amanda and Raffaele convicted. One question I have for you: other than very reasonable conjecture about the details of the late stages of the interrogation, has anything shown up on the record? I would think that if it had it would have had a significant impact on the outcome of the trial.

    Have you had any direct involvement in the case or have you, like me, become interested in it by happenstance?


  3. Victor Says:

    NIce job, Joe. I have seen the TV movie and followed the news (loosely). Your detailed reviews helped me get clearer on it. Thanks.

  4. Joe Says:


    I’ve not seen the movie but from what I have read it doesn’t do much to clarify things. It seems to be really more of a drama rather than a documentary and so emphasis the facts that titillate, perhaps like the tabloid press in a sense. I hope that you are reading the other comments – they are also edifying.


  5. Michael Says:

    Don’t forget the language barrier. A lot of people only vaguely understand that Amanda was not very good in Italian at that point. She needed a translator much of the time, except for basic Italian.

    Yet, the prosecution theory was that she seductively persuaded both Rafaelle and Rudy to help her in a wild sex game that turned to murder. But one of those men spoke zero English, and the other had only as much English as Amanda had Italian.

    I think everyone forgets about the Tower of Babel effect. Americans probably visualize the whole thing happening in English, while the Italians probably imagine the whole thing happening in Italian.

    In fact, all of this- the grueling interrogation of an exhausted young woman, her presumed seductive persuasion to get two guys to commit a sex game and murder–took place with a fairly severe language barrier.

    Today, after years of studying Italian in the prison, Amanda speaks almost like a native, so it’s not easy to recall her level of Italian in those early days. But my daughter attends UW, and she spoke to the professor who taught Italian to Amanda before she left for Italy: it’s clear that Amanda was a mere beginner at the Italian language at that time.

    A professional police station, a national law that absolutely requires that interrogations be videotaped, an American suspected of a crime to the point of a written confession, and an American who speaks only halting Italian. Yet no videotape, no real translator, and tactics out of a B-movie about bad cops.

    Amanda said she was hit by the police during the interrogation. Lumumba said even more: he was hit, called racist names, forced to kneel in a corner, and was scared out of his mind. But guess who got sued for slander? Not Lumumba, that’s certain.

    To prove beyond any doubt that Amanda was NOT hit by the police, it’s a very simple matter. Simply let the court view the videotape (which is required by law from the police) of the interrogation. Unless, you don’t want to show that videotape, or worse, you broke the law by not using a videotape at all.


  6. Joe Says:


    Yes, the language surely was an issue. The books were not very clear about the level of her command of Italian. I’ve been studying Italian for sometime and hers might have been a little better than mine but she surely quickly got lost under the pressure of interrogation and also the vocabulary for this kind of conversation was surely quite different from what she routinely used. It’s like trying to read a business journal in Italian or, more recently, an Italian mystery. It is quite a different selection of words from the normal day today talking to friends, other students and store clerks. Add to that the level of intimidation that seems to have been done by the cops then it certainly adds to the bad cop aura of the whole affair.

    I have read that there was quite a lot of furor in the American press at the time about supposed anti-American bias in the case. I have read nothing at all to indicate that was a factor. It seems more that it was the Italian police trying to save face and look like a hero by jailing someone that was the real source of all of the bias in the case. I can only hope that justice is finally served in this appeal. I had hoped for some relatively swift resolution but, like many things in Italy, the process is moving at a glacial pace. I read in one of the Italian newspapers that a verdict on the appeal can be expected in September.

    Thanks for the comment, Michael.


  7. Sienna Reid Says:

    Thank you for your fair assessment of these two books. One other thing about Nadeau is that she is a friend of Mignini the prosecutor who came up with the absurd theory in the first place. That absurd theory then turned into many absurd theories as he tried to fit a square peg into a round hole. The other point to mention is that the theory was developed before DNA analysis was done and returned from the labs, and yet it was never changed significantly even though no DNA pointed to Amanda or Raffaele. Even when the DNA evidence clearly pointed to Rudy Guede they never changed the theory. No connections between Amanda, Raffaele and Guede but they kept the same theory. The trial was a witch hunt in which the two kids were made to be the killers for the benefit of the cops and the prosecutor who would have looked like absolute idiots if they were not convicted. The other point to mention is that there is long list of illegal police work involved with this case. Not recording the interviews, no tapes, threatening the kids with long prison sentences IF they got lawyers, not allowing them to contact their embassy, leaking illegally many private statements about Amanda and Raffaele that were lies to the press, not providing Amanda with an unbiased translator. All of this combined to help the cops and the prosecutor with their setup. Thanks for pointing out the language issue. This was never examined enough by people. Having lived in Italy for 12 years I know the issues of language. Even when I had studied French for 3 years in High School, when I arrived in France I could barely communicate. It takes time, adapting to accents and ways of daily speaking (as opposed to text book), and is a difficult process. Amanda in no way understood what the police were doing to her. She trusted them. She knew she was innocent and did not believe that she was in danger. By the time she understood what was happening it was too late. They locked her in solitary for a week after they got her supposed confession, which was merely an answer to one of their questions about what could have happened while she was delirious with the interrogations. I also need to point out that i have witnessed first hand the Italian technique of screaming and yelling when they think you have done something wrong- it is terrifying and there is no way to win.

  8. Joe Says:


    Thanks for your comments. It is true that Nadeau seemed to brag a lot in her book about her relationships with the law enforcement establishment as well as a number of journalists. I don’t necessarily see any thing wrong with that but certainly if she had a close relationship with someone who was in a prosecutorial position that would tend to sway her judgement. I’m a little uncomfortable with the term “witch hunt” although as I think about the definition it is probably accurate. It certainly did seem that the police just wanted to nab anyone to close on the case and show that they were on the job. As I said in an answer to a previous post this is certainly not unique to Italy. We have had lots of such cases in the U.S. and probably for the same ego gratifying and ass covering reasons. I definitely agree with you that they took enormous advantage of Amanda who, I believe, had the attitude that if she didn’t do anything wrong then the cops must be her friend. I would have a tendency to do the same so I find it understandable. However I’m older and wiser and would probably be more apt to sense when they were not being my friend at all and indeed were abusing their position of power. Let’s hope that this gets undone.


  9. Kurt Williams Says:


    My interest in the case is happenstance. I initially thought she was guilty, but after several weeks of waiting for solid evidence became totally convinced of her innocence. I have read five books and numerous articles since about this incredible railroad job.

    I do know that Edgardo Giobbi testified that he heard Amanda’s screams during the interrogation. So much for the official police version of a calm, direct interrogation without intimidation. I know the members of the jury were free to read the tabloid views of Amanda’s interrogation and to discuss their personal views with others. I haven’t heard much on the record information, though Amanda’s version has come out in various forms. I fairly detailed and interesting review of the interrogation’s details has come out in Nina Burleigh’s new book, The Fatal Gift of Beauty.

  10. Joe Says:


    My interest is also happenstance. I don’t know how I would have reacted if I had even been aware of the case when it was actually going on. I for one know from direct experience the police lie, just like other people do although their lies can do much more damage. Such as in this case.


  11. Janet Butler Says:

    Hi – just a note or two on the AK case. I lived in Perugia for more than 20 years (from 1984 to 2005), and have continued to read La Repubblica and Corriere della Sera daily, as well as follow news shows I like when I can. I particularly like

    That said (oh, I have an MA in Italian and am fluent in it) I would like to mention two things that came out in the press which seem to mystify some folks here: first, AK blamed Patrick Lamamba (her ex-boss at the pub) for the crime, it was said, because he fired her for spending more time with the guys than waiting on them, and, interestingly, he was going to give her job to Meredith (the murdered girl), so it was deduced that she lied about his presence out of spite and was, in fact, a bit miffed with Meredith. Another thing that has always bothered me is the fact that she and her boyfriend changed their stories at least twice, if not three times. In the days immediately after the crime, she apparently said (on more than one occasions) that she came home, found Meredith’s bedroom door closed, and then heard screams coming from inside. Instead of calling the police, as any sensible person would have – or running out the house and down the street for help (I lived in an apt on the hill above where she lived, the back view from her apt is all countryside, but her apt fronted a busy street, and was two steps from the Universita per Stranieri), instead of going for help, she said she covered her ears so as not to hear anything. After a week or so, she changed her story. Now she was at her new boyfriend’s apt where she spent the night. He later said he “couldn’t remember” if she had spent the night (!) – he too lied to the police, saying he had been on his computer late that night and the next morning, when an investigation of the hard disc showed that he hadn’t used it from I believe 3pm of the day before the killing. Both AK and her bf have lied and changed their stories – if they were innocent, why lie? As for them claiming to NOT know the guy convicted (Rudy J.) he was a known small-time drug pusher, Perugia is a relatively small town, and, when I studied there, everyone knew of or about everybody else. So I rather discount that she and her bf didn’t know Rudy J. She does seem to spin a tall tale. And I keep coming back to this: why lie and invent different stories if you’re innocent?

  12. Joe Says:


    Thanks for your comment. Others who have commented (and I concur) really believe that the police made the suggestion to Amanda when she was in a receptive state that Patrick was involved. She recanted this almost immediately. She was told that having a lawyer would make things worse and was verbally bludgeoned by the police for hours. Neither book established that there was any real friction between Amanda and Meredith. I’d be interested in where the “it was said” comes from since I don’t recall that from either book unless it was something reported in the tabloid press which was incredibly out of touch with any reality. Tabloids being what they are I’m surprised that there were no space aliens involved. I do remember story changes both by Raffaele and Amanda. I do not recall that she said that she was there and her Meredith scream other than in the suspect “confession”. I don’t recall the details. In terms of Raffaele’s use of the computer – you are right that he was not using it late at night as he said but they did watch a movie on it so the statement about having used it since the previous afternoon is inaccurate. While you may be able to know everyone in a city of 168,000 inhabitants (as of 2010) or maybe even a student body at the Universita’ per Stranieri with a student body of 1700, I have not been able to know everyone at a company with 300 people where I worked for several years. There was no evidence mentioned in either book that either Amanda or Raffaele knew Rudy although Meredith knew him but only slightly. I can understand you unease because both she and Raffaele changed their storied but again, is that enough to put them away for 25 years when nothing else really adds up?


  13. Kurt Williams Says:


    Please read my initial response above detailing the coerced confession of Amanda. I laid out the reasons Amanda “lied” during the interrogation. This often happens in the US, especially in jurisdictions where the police are not required to tape confessions. By breaking laws concerning videotaping confessions, allowing a suspect legal counsel, allowing professional and impartial translation of a foreign language and possibly allowing the suspect access to a member of the US consulate, the interrogators proved they have plenty to hide and don’t want any witnesses. If one is thirsty, hungry, exhausted and terrified in the middle of the night, the police can manipulate any victim/suspect into changing their story, including Amanda and Raffaele. Also, Amanda’s versions on the night of the interrogation are the only examples I have been able to find that deviate substantially from her overall storyline. I would welcome any other examples.

    As stated in my earlier comment, Amanda had no reason to implicate Patrick Lumumba until the interrogators saw her text message to him saying “See you later” and made up the lies that Patrick had actually left the bar early and had murdered Meredith, with Amanda being in her apartment at the same time. Also, Patrick, who should be suing the police (a prospect that might frighten any African immigrant living in Perugia), has instead decided to gamble on a big payday from Amanda. Unfortunately for him, he was forced to admit in court that he actually wasn’t going to fire Amanda and that Amanda quit the day after Meredith’s murder because she was worried about being out late at night with an unknown murderer on the loose. Patrick also changed his story about how brutally the Perugian police treated him. It’s beginning to look like picking the side of the powerful Perugian authorities was a bad gamble.

    I highly recommend this link if you want a more professional breakdown of Amanda’s coerced confession >

  14. Joe Says:


    I agree to all of this. I did find a site that has a number of original documents because there have been some links from there to my blog. The site is heavily anti Amanda with people shouting down anyone who seems to think otherwise. It is kind of like reading comment threads on Yahoo (not the best place to find intelligence). Still there are some original documents that I found useful. One striking thing about this case is that it is so NOT black and white. It seems that one can construe the evidence to fit any preconceived opinion. Most of the comments on the site that I mentioned ( discount contradictory evidence as I would assume is the same on a pro-Amanda site. I still am firm in my believe that she and Raffaele are innocent and certainly were naive at the time that this all occurred.


  15. Quentin Says:

    I agree with your assessment but must dissent in one particular: the case is black and white. They are entirely innocent. There is no point on which the defense is even shaky. The prosecution case is entirely a hoax and it is not “objective” to pretend otherwise. Ten years from now it will be widely conceded that an extraordinary injustice took place. The only real questions will have to do with why so many otherwise intelligent people continued to find discredited prosecution claims satisfying.

    With regard to Amanda’s police induced hallucination, the only question one needs to ask is: is the right to counsel important? Most people will answer “yes.” The second question, then, is “why?” After all, if the police were always honest and if suspects could not be induced to make false or incriminating statements through coercion, there would be no need for a right to counsel. The right to counsel is important PRECISELY because police can and do coerce suspects into making false statements.

    The facts are these:

    –The police were bugging Amanda’s phone and knew they were running out of time. Her mother was arriving the next day and would get her a lawyer.
    –They authorized overtime for no fewer than 12 detective grade officers (some coming from Rome for the night) in order to break her that night.
    –Amanda was interrogated under conditions that would not be acceptable anywhere in the civilized world. She was tag teamed and mobbed over an extended period during normal sleeping hours. The police refused her request to call a lawyer. They cuffed her lightly to intimidate her (only a fool doesn’t believe this happened). There was no qualified, independent translator and she was forced to sign statements that she did not understand.

    No decent person analyzing the case objectively would give the police the benefit of the doubt as a result of this brutal, poisonous process. The truth is plain to see. The police suspected Lumumba and brutalized Amanda until she confirmed their suspicions.

    One interesting thing to come out of the new Burleigh book is that Lumumba is actually much kinder to Amanda than has been portrayed in much of the British trash press. He knows Amanda was brutalized because the police did the same thing to him.

  16. Joe Says:


    I indeed believe that an injustice was done and most of the comments have been along the same lines. Since I don’t claim to be omniscient I allow some chance that I could be in error. I know that there is a crowd out there that believe just as strongly as you in her guilt and presumably they are not all indecent. That’s why I don’t believe that it is so black and white. Of course there are people who strongly believe in creationism rather than evolution and to me that’s about as black and white as I can imagine. But of course the creationists are idiots – or perhaps their need for total faith in a book exceeds their rational capacity.


  17. BoycottItaly Says:

    This case is so egregious. It is generally true that Italians harbor hate for Americans, and here we have the result. There is no way that this family can be made whole from these crimes- and yes, the police and prosecution did commit many crimes. My family and I travel the world; we went to Italy once before this happened, but we will never go again. We have stopped buying all Italian products; they can keep their shoes and wine! All Universities should immediately drop all cultural exchange and study abroad programs, as clearly the students are vulnerable and unsafe. There are better places to go, and students do place their trust in these programs, feeling assured that they would not be sent somewhere like this. We must learn from this experience and protect our country’s children.

    It is incredible that a prosecutor who belongs in a mental institution for his delusions is instead allowed to act in an official capacity; though he is simply motivated to destroy lives.

  18. Joe Says:

    I don’t know your name but your comment is, in a word, silly. I am currently in Italy and have been here for a month. It is absolutely untrue that Italians hate Americans. If anything it is the exact opposite. Certainly this case is a travesty but I could point out many cases in the U.S. that are as bad or worse. In fact many ARE worse. We have executed many people who were innocent – surely you are aware of this. We have many wackos in the criminal justice system. Perhaps you have read of the sheriff in Phoenix Arizona as just one example. How about recent executions in Texas and Georgia. How about the governor of Illinois who halted executions because so many of the previously executed had been proven innocent as a result of subsequent DNA testing? If you wish to deprive yourself of excellent Italian products you really do no harm to them of course. With an attitude such as yours perhaps you’re better off to stay in the U.S. rather than experience other countries which are often quite delightful.


  19. Stacy Says:

    It’s refreshing to read an intelligent discourse on this matter. The misinformation I find on most sites being posted is astounding, if somewhat mind-boggling. I had no idea if Knox and Sollecito were innocent or guilty when I first started following this case, but after careful consideration of the evidence on both pro- and anti-Knox sites, I could only come to the conclusion that they are innocent. I am thrilled they were found innocent and are now home.

  20. Joe Says:

    I’m with you Stacy. I was quite relieved to see them leave. I hope that they are able to reclaim the lost 4 years.

  21. Stacy Says:

    Having travelled to Italy several times, and going back next summer, I can say that Italians are not “anti-American”. I have been treated with nothing but respect and kindness there.

Leave a Reply