One of the many lines of argument deployed by defenders of Amanda Knox is that her conviction was based, in part, on information about her personality and private life which was never really relevant to the question of whether she might have been guilty of murder and which has, in any case, been distorted so as to give a picture which would not be familiar to anyone who knows her.
She was sexually promiscuous. She used drugs. She posted some slightly dark short stories online. People around her were disturbed by her response to the death of her flatmate. She performed cartwheels at the police station. She kissed her boyfriend on TV. She once made an arguably anti-Semitic remark. She kept a vibrator on display in the bathroom. Have I missed anything out?
Up to a point, I can nod understandingly at the dismay that any of these things might be taken to indicate her guilt. After all, what 20 year-old student isn’t interested in sex and drugs? Cartwheels at the police station? Who here can honestly say they have never committed a faux pas unless it had been preceded by a murder? As for her amateur fiction, are we to presume that Stephen King may be a real-life arsonist or axe-wielding maniac? Is JK Rowling a real-life sorceress?
However, although much of this stuff was indeed reported in the media, I don’t think it is very clear at all that it influenced her trial, let alone that it was a basis for her conviction. The prosecution, in a search for some clear motive (elusive in this case), did present evidence that Meredith Kercher and Knox had fallen out over matters to do with the latter’s tidiness and choice of bathroom ornaments. I don’t think that’s the sort of evidence on which anyone will ever be convicted of such a serious crime, and the court was right not to take it into account in reaching its decision.
Along with her two co-accused, Knox was convicted on the basis of footprints, DNA evidence, an apparently staged burglary and her shifting accounts and vague memory as to what happened on the night of the murder.
Any or all of this evidence may conceivably be found wanting upon scrutiny. As far as I can see, that scrutiny is what’s going on right now as she and Raffaele Sollecito exercise their right to an appeal.
Tabloids print all kinds of rubbish. Don’t buy them. But, at the same time, don’t imagine that a courtroom, having spent nearly a year hearing evidence, is likely to have convicted someone of murder because of something they read about something someone may or may not have done on a train.
maundygregory 
I’ll admit that the title is the best part of this post. For those who may be too young or have other things to concern themselves with, it’s a reference to a famous editorial in The Times.
First of all, thank you very much for your objective and well written reviews on this case. It is quite refreshing.
BUT…you did miss a couple of things about her personality that bother me quite a bit, especially when added to what you have listed: she didn’t go the memorial! I’m sorry but….that is plain shocking. I have heard a couple of ridiculous excuses thrown about but please…just try to defend that! If she truly cared about her friend and roommate (just know that she was NOT in jail at the time) she would have been there.
Her courtroom behavior, especially in the pre trail was also downright shocking.
As an American living abroad as this story broke, I originaly believed that she was innocent but after watching her sashay, flirt and giggle through the proceedings, I started to question myself. Her emotions and behavior were not normal.
She fingered someone else (i somehow don’t see her as a shrinking violet type), she changed her alibis, she “forgot” cell phone activity, her personal email that she sent to family and friends (oh boy) that conflicted with her written statement a day or two later. Have I forgotten anything? Most likely … I will think on it tonight.
That doesn’t show proof, of course, that she murdered, but it does show that she didn’t care too much and that it seemed to be all about her. After reading all of the information I can, on both sides, I truly believe that she was, at the very least there ( and not at Rafaelle’s apt..haha, what a joke that explanation is).
I try and keep an open mind and ask myself, what could change to make me think that she is completely innocent? It would take a lot because, for me, her very own behavior has done the damage.
Thank you again, and please, keep up the great objective reporting.
I haven’t seen the not attending the memorial thing come up for awhile. Has it ever been verified that Laura and Filomena attended?
Just what exactly is the relevance of Laura or Filomena’s doings in the context of the conviction of Amanda Knox for the murder of Meredith Kercher? Laura and Filomena are not claiming a close friendship with Meredith as a defence against murdering her. They may or may not have attended Meredith’s memorial, either way it is irrelevant here.
It is Amanda herself, her family and her supporters that claim that Amanda was in fact close friends with Meredith. They each have gone to lengths to convince us of this close friendship. We are told of their trip together to the chocolate festival (lost happy-buddy photos on Amanda’s damaged hard drive), their trip together to the classical concert (where AK met RS), their socialising together down town (Amanda was introduced to Rudy but hung out with Meredith), their texting to each other in the days immediately preceding Meredith’s murder to arrange getting together for the Halloween parties. There are many other instances of their close socialising and friendship; generally reported by Amanda supporters. Amanda herself would also have us believe that it is inconceivable that she could hurt Meredith because of their friendship. Amanda is on record and in fact stated to the Courts that “Meredith was HER FRIEND and that she could never hurt her” [paraphrase].
It is in this context of the proposed close/meaningful friendship that it is unusual in the extreme that an individual couldn’t be bothered to attend a memorial to honour her friend who was brutally murdered Just days before. Diverting the focus away from Amanda’s actions cannot alter what we know of this one of numerous instances of her bazaar behaviour.
Very nice. That editorial is a reference to a poem going back another 250 years and the analogy is very appropriate in my opinion. Who straps a butterfly on a torture wheel in order to break her? How many officers were involved in Amanda’s interrogation that resulted in her breaking and giving a version of events that the cops knew to be true? How many dozens of officers and investigators received special awards for this investigation? Has a “mountain” of evidence been made out of a “molehill” of reality?
The question to me is if there was a tremendous effort involved in “proving” a theory that was based on this behavior and if this effort achieved results that are highly questionable.
If investigators did set out to prove a theory that at first wouldn’t have stood up in court, that’s okay in itself, though, isn’t it? Isn’t that the story of most investigations? Wouldn’t it be fairly unusual for the first hint of suspicion to come in the form of a smoking gun?
@Rose,
Amanda Knox was questioned for approximately 2 hours and 45 minutes on 5 November 2007. She voluntarily admitted that she was at the cottage when Meredith was killed after she had been informed that Sollecito had admitted lying to the police and was no longer providing her with an alibi. Sollecito has refused to corroborate Knox’s alibi that she was at his apartment ever since.
Amanda Knox’s number of intimate partners is normal for someone of her age. All four flatmates had boyfriends, smoked marijuana, and had boyfriends. Therefore, calling Ms. Knox promiscuous and saying that she used drugs is misleading. Hammerlite’s statement is also somewhat misleading. Amanda’s supporters claim that she and Meredith were friendly and got along well, not that they were especially close friends. How could they be after knowing each other less than two months?
You wrote, “If investigators did set out to prove a theory that at first wouldn’t have stood up in court, that’s okay in itself, though, isn’t it? Isn’t that the story of most investigations.” No, it is not. The problem is that when an investigation sets out to prove a theory, other equally or more valid theories are not considered. This is what I mean whan I speak of tunnel-vision with respect to this case. As former FBI agent Steve Moore wrote at IIP, “Young or inexperienced investigators have a tendency to believe their own hunches. This is dangerous, because uneducated hunches are usually wrong. Hunches are not bad, they just need to be allowed to die a natural death when evidence proves them wrong.” The hunch that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito killed Meredith is just such a hunch. It should have died when the evidence pointed straight at Rudi Guede.
You wrote, “But, at the same time, don’t imagine that a courtroom, having spent nearly a year hearing evidence, is likely to have convicted someone of murder because of something they read about something someone may or may not have done on a train.” If what you wrote were strictly true, there would never be a need to sequester a jury or to have a change of venue.
As former FBI agent Steve Moore wrote at IIP…
Excuse any typos I might make in my response as I struggle to see through the tears.
What you seem to me to be doing is imagining you can read the minds of the investigators.
It’s true that, in the early days of the investigation, the evidence against Knox and Sollecito was not conclusive, merely highly suggestive. All they had was the inconsistencies in and repeated revisions to their stories, the fact that Knox had told them she was at the crime scene, the developing hypothesis of a staged break-in and multiple witnesses saying they found Knox’s behaviour suspicious. It ought to have been conceivable that all of those things might have been explained away with the passage of time.
But no investigators anywhere in the world would have taken the view that they really ought to sit on their hands and not follow any relevant lines of enquiry until something incontrovertible just fell into their lap.
Regarding your last comment, most legal experts seem to agree that sequestering a jury is rarely needed, and it is something that is rarely done anywhere in the world. I don’t think any suggestion that Knox was convicted because of her alleged infraction of Italian railway bylaws or her Facebook status can be taken at all seriously. If anyone defending Amanda is making use of that argument, they must feel faced with pretty slim pickings.
Harry Rag,
what you wrote about Raffaele’s refusing to corroborate Amanda’s alibi is false. Raffaele backed Amanda’s alibi up in front of Judge Matteini
@Chris,
Would you care to support your opinion that Sollecito backed up Knox’s alibi in front of Judge Matteini with some actual proof?
Thanks in advance.
@Chris…it was not my intention to mislead and I feel my representation of the case is closer to the facts than your understated suggestion “that she and Meredith were friendly and got along well, not that they were especially close friends”. This clearly does not tally with what Edda Mellas said on NBC’s Today show on 7/31/2008 when Edda, Curt and Deanna were interviewed by Meredith Vieira.
Quote…“Knowing that she would be appearing on TODAY, Mellas visited Amanda on Tuesday and asked her daughter what she would want Americans to know about her.“She wanted people to know she was innocent and her and Meredith [Kercher] were good friends and they had a great time,” Mellas said…. “
I am prepared to amend my statement above and substitute ‘close friends’ with ‘good friends’ if this satisfies you but I don’t think readers will feel there is a substantive difference in the actual level/degree of friendship claimed. I still feel the intent of Amanda’s message and endorsed by her family of ‘good friends’ was to convey that there was a closeness of friendship there that far exceeded a courteous or friendly manner exchanged between strangers who shared accommodation that you seem to suggest.
I don’t see any claims that Amanda and Meredith were BFF’s as they had only known each other for a short time. We do know they attended several events together like the concert where Amanda met Raffaele and the Chocolate Festival that according to Robyn Butterworth, they attended together. Yet on Halloween they went their separate ways and Meredith went to eat at her other friends place on 1 November. I think they were beginning to form a good friendship.
As far as Raffaelele in front of Matteini, it does get a brief mention in Matteini and is described more fully in Darkness Descending:
Thanks for coming back on this Rose. It must be a generational thing but even after looking it up I am still unsure exactly what BFF actually means. It also might explain why I have only eight friends on Facebook.
When you state “I think they were beginning to form a good friendship.” would it be fair to describe this as a blossoming friendship? Amanda herself described their friendship as “good”. I don’t think there is really much distance between us on this even substituting a ‘GOOD-BLOSSOMING’ tag to describe the friendship between Amanda and Meredith. With this in mind I reiterate my conclusion above with amendments for Amanda’s description first and yours to read as follows.
Quote…”It is in the context of this GOOD friendship that it is unusual in the extreme that an individual couldn’t be bothered to attend a memorial to honor her friend who was brutally murdered Just days before. Diverting the focus away from Amanda’s actions cannot alter what we know of this one of numerous instances of her bazaar behavior”.
Quote…”It is in the context of this BLOSSOMING friendship that it is unusual in the extreme that an individual couldn’t be bothered to attend a memorial to honor her friend who was brutally murdered Just days before. Diverting the focus away from Amanda’s actions cannot alter what we know of this one of numerous instances of her bazaar behavior”.
Sorry that I initially missed your response here Hammerite. Your description of their friendship is probably an accurate one. She should have attended the memorial and Filomena and Laura as well. I don’t know the circumstances of why Amanda did not attend and if there were other factors that went into her decision. I think labeling it as bizarre is not the best way to describe this without knowing more information.
@Rose,
According to Darkness Descending, Sollecito didn’t rule out the possibility that Knox left his apartment on the night of the murder:
“…I don’t remember if Amanda Knox went out that evening. We were at my place at 8:30 [p.m.]. I must have mixed things up because I remember that Amanda must have come home with me but I don’t remember if she went out…” (Darkness Descending, page 210).
More importantly, Sollecito refused to corroborate Knox’s alibi that she was at his apartment at the trial.
Harry,
Don’t you think that this is a tad misleading. He also refused to corroborate that Mignini is a six foot invisible lizard. I don’t recall Raffaele testifying either way (mainly because he did not testify), much less refusing to answer a question regarding this matter.
Harry Rag, From the context I would say that Raffaele was talking about the possibility of Amanda’s leaving for a few minutes. He discussed the sink incident extensively, for example, among other things that the two did together.
@Harry Rag,
RoseMontague gave one source, Darkness Descending, and I will give another, Murder in Italy. Do you have any evidence to the contrary?
@Hammerlite,
RoseMontague did a good job answering this question already. I would add that their relationship would not be an issue except for two things. One is PM Mignini’s motive, and two are internet where Amanda is given the dimestore psychoanalysis treatment (Amanda was envious of Meredith’s qualities is one variant). However, one problem with arguing that there was friction between the two roommates is that Robyn Butterworth testified that Meredith never shared her complaints with Amanda (Murder in Italy, p. 281). That there would be some problems between roomates strikes me as normal.
Chris,thanks for going to the trouble to post but you have completely lost me. What is the relevance of what you post here with Rose’s original post/question that I was addressing… namely ‘we know Amanda did not attend Meredith’s memorial but did Laura and Filomena attend it either’?
Hammerlite, I realize that I have said different things at different times about whether Amanda, Laura, and Filomena should have attended the memorial. That reflects my own ambivalent feelings on the matter. Suffice it to say that they should have, but IMO it is understandable and forgivable if they did not.
Here is the quote from Matteini:
@Hammerlite,
I appreciate your willingness to discuss and consider nuances of language in a gracious manner, and I was remiss not to say to earlier. It is my claim that the relationship between Amanda and Meredith was normal for two roommates who spoke the same language in a foreign country and had known each other for roughly six weeks. Among the pieces of evidence I would use include the testimony of Marco Marzan, who said that he never noticed any friction between the two, testimony that is consistent with what Filomena also said, if I understand correctly. Perhaps even calling them good friends is a slight overstatement, although I believe it is nearer the mark than close friends.
Let me address the memorial, and I will assume that Laura and Filomena also did not attend for the sake of my argument. None of the three young women had known Meredith very long, and all may have been physically tired and also mentally tired of the spotlight. I do not think it would reflect badly on any of them if they did not attend.
Chris, I actually concur that Amanda and Meredith were in fact good-budding-blooming-dear-close-blossoming-emerging etc. etc. friends with the usual bits of friction. This is not the issue for me.
Out of the trio of Amanda-Laura-Filomena; Amanda alone is convicted of involvement in Meredith’s, sexual assault torture and brutal murder. Laura and Filomena have left the building so to speak – never to return. It is a diversion to be discussing their hypnotically supportive actions at this stage in the process, we are way past that aspiration at this juncture.
I suspect that the totality of Amanda’s bizarre behaviour is doing her no favours in this case. This is but one instance among many that exist. Has Amanda ever explained why she avoided Meredith’s memorial…perhaps a detailed explanation would enlighten all interested partied and most importantly the current jury in whose opinions rest her fate for the next quarter century or so? Whether you believe this is just or not an innocent and forthright explanation for all of her peccadilloes might be to her advantage at this vital stage.
Of course she could keep silent like Raffaele and demand that the state prove their case of guilt but we have seen that this strategy has already failed in the past. In my opinion this adhesion to silence will result in a confirmation of the guilty verdict of the initial court. The quantum of evidence that persuaded the jury in the initial trial far exceeds the few items that are being reviewed in this appeal. Of course I could be wrong and only time will tell.
I do accept that is a terrible ordeal for all of the families regardless of the what actually occurred.
H
I know it’s been a while since this was posted but i’d just like to point out that you are saying that her strategy is lacking, not her actual innocence. You think that her method of proving her innocence is ineffective (she didn’t go to the memorial). This has nothing to do with her actual innocence though. If she were guilty, she might try very hard to appear in anguish for the media. Because there’s no motive and because she didn’t necessarily act distressed, I don’t think she did it. I certainly wouldn’t go to the memorial of a friend of mine who’d just been murdered in my apartment after I’d been questioned by police and showcased in the headlines. I’d be too damn stressed out to handle that.
People forget that this murder scenario only works if Amanda is actually a psychopath. But she didn’t show any psychopathic tendencies (promiscuity, pot, and masturbation don’t count….) and there really aren’t that many psychopaths in the world. I think people have been watching too many movies. Rape is relatively common, men commit rape moreso than women, rape is violent, and rape can often lead to more violence. Guede and perhaps other men raped and murdered the poor girl. Knox didn’t do it.
You have yet to address the question of change in venue. In some high-profile cases the defense contemplates this strategy. The lawyers for the three defendants in the Duke lacrosse case filed just such a motion in December of 2006, noting that the defendants were entitled to “a trial in a community which has not been polarized by pretrial publicity or torn apart by the circumstances of these cases.”
Sorry Chris, but who is that addressed to?
Maundy,
My point about change of venue was addressed to you, because you covered jury sequestration. I agree that sequestration is rarely used, and some have even called for an end to the practice, but I am unaware that changes of venue fall into the same category. What do you mean by “repeated revisions to their stories?” Both Knox and Sollecito have told two basic stories: what they said on November 5th, and what they said before and after.
You wrote, “But no investigators anywhere in the world would have taken the view that they really ought to sit on their hands and not follow any relevant lines of enquiry until something incontrovertible just fell into their lap.” This is a distortion of my position. What they should have done is to let the forensics lead the investigation (they could have put any suspects under surveillance). What they did instead was to trust Dr. Giobbi’s belief that forensic evidence was not necessary (I am not reading minds; I am going on what he said), and this put pressure on the forensic scientists to confirm that the case was indeed “closed.” It was partly this pressure that caused the poor quality of the DNA and blood forensics, IMO.
I don’t know the context of what Giobbi may have said, but I generally agree with the sentiment. This isn’t case that hangs by DNA evidence. If the lab had burnt down during the tests, there would still have been a trial.
On change of venue, my main comment would be that I don’t think this is something the defence ever requested. Since this was a national news story, I don’t think changing venue would have made much difference in terms of exposure to media coverage. I also don’t think that, except in the most extreme examples (one of which this is not), media coverage has any influence to be concerned about once hour after hour is spent going over the evidence in an actual courtroom.
Investigators certainly shouldn’t have let forensics, or any particular class of evidence, take the lead. That’s how miscarriages of justice happen. Investigators should be expected to come up with as much mutually supporting evidence as they can, which is what they did as far as I can see in this case. There shouldn’t be any hierarchy of type in the way you suggest.
I don’t think your point about “pressure on the forensic scientists” makes sense. I’ve seen you state elsewhere that it is not disputable that the DNA matches, for example, found by investigators were genuine matches. The possibility of contamination is one thing (I hope the review will bring some clarity about that), but what is it that you are proposing? That the pressure felt by the scientists led to some psychic process where DNA matches formed themselves as if by magic?
Hammerlite,
Amanda testified; Raffaele did not: and they both got convicted. Amanda tried to explain that the rabbit vibrator was a joke gift, and there were a bunch of vibrator stories in the papers after that. In contrast I have heard it said that the courtroom was sometimes half-empty when the defense was making its case. Raffaele did not testify, and some wondered why he did not support her alibi. I think that both were caught between a rock and a hard place. I also think that Amanda’s explanations are not going to convince someone whose mind is already made up.
Do you mean as to her guilt or as to her innocence?
I don’t know Chris, I myself think that the new judge/jury panel will give the appeal trial a fair hearing. My basis for this is the nature of the selection of the lay jurors in Italy. They comprise of individuals who put themselves forward for selection on a holding panel…rather than the somewhat reluctant, resentful at times method of jury selection that exists in the USA (and many other jurisdictions including my own). I am assuming (maybe wrongfully) that because they offer their services voluntary for any at random caseload that they are chosen to hear that consequentially they are impartial to the outcome of this or any other case.
In addition my take on the ordering of the review of certain disputed items of evidence from the original trial by Hellmann (sp?) differs from some views that I have seen expressed mainly by pro Knox supporters. The views I am referring to here are that if say the double DNA knife, and eye/ear witnesses are deemed unreliable and are “are thrown out” then the entire case has fallen apart and Amanda and Rafaela will walk. My belief on the reasons for the review is that Hellmann et al wish to establish just exactly what evidence is entitled to be on the table, or indeed what weight to attribute to certain items in this De Nuevo trial. They will then make their judgment of innocence or guilt based solely on the now undisputed book of evidence. So my belief is that the Hellmann panel are in the process of establishing the totality of the evidence on which they will subsequently make their decision on.
My reasoning here is the nature of the role of the judges/jurors in the Italian judicial system. Unlike our systems where the defence and prosecution duke it out and the jury are passive observers; and the jury can then only make a decision based restrictively on what has been presented to them. The judge/jury panel in the Italian system are empowered to investigate the crime and therefore they evaluate the evidence and opinions put forward by the opposing sides. It is not a “we won that point so it is in and we lost that point so it is out” system. The judges/jurors are there to investigate the circumstances of the crime and render their judgment based on THEIR investigation. The defence and prosecution are there to assist them in this task so to speak. Don’t know if I made this clear?
Hammerlite, I was unaware that the jurors put themselves forward in Italy. Thank you for that information, and I tend to agree with you that I think it counts in their favor, all else being equal. You make an interesting point with respect to the inquisitorial nature of the jury, but I am not in a position to comment further at this time. I think that other factors than the selection of the jury were more decisive in the trial of the first instance: I am of the opinion that there was too much pretrial publicity and not enough discovery, as I have indicated in other comments.
You may well be correct with respect to what Judge Hellmann is doing. I am concerned that he has not yet indicated an interest in discussing time of death arguments. If he does not, it is entirely possible that the knife and the witnesses will be tossed, yet the conviction confirmed. If he does, he has the opportunity of rectifying one of the errors (as I see it) of the first trial, which was to allow PM Mignini to change the TOD in his closing remarks.
Maundy,
I think that those who believe that she is guilty are not going to change their minds just because of what she says about the memorial, which is how this conversation began, IIUC. Those of us who believe that the two are innocent have listed a few pieces of evidence (such as the putative semen stain and the knife) that might change our minds about the case depending on what the results of the tests were. Can the same be said of those who favor guilt?
I think most people who agree with the trial verdict would say that, since Knox and Sollecito were convicted on the basis of multiple strands of evidence, there is no single detail in particular which would lead to an exoneration if it changed.
There are obviously various possible permutations regarding the DNA evidence, in terms of what is accepted and not accepted, how strong any criticism is and what is said in response to the report in court. It’s a lot of scenarios to imagine.
I would say, though, that there are four things which, for me, are the strongest indicators of guilt.
Firstly, the “staged” break-in. I think this is not proven if the testimony of Marsi and Romanelli, about where glass was found, is modified so that they say they are now unsure about it being on top of the clothing and laptop.
Secondly, Knox’s accusation of Lumumba. A credible alternative reason for this would be likely to influence me. But I don’t find police brutality or pressure convincing.
Thirdly, the DNA on the knife and the bra-clasp. If these are both discredited by the review, that would have a significant impact on my opinion.
Lastly, Sollecito’s footprint in the bathroom. I’ve not seen anything that persuades me this could be anything other than Sollecito’s footprint.
I would not need everything on the list, but if I two or three then we might be getting into the area of reasonable doubt. Just my opinion.
I also think that a story where either Knox or Sollecito is an accessory rather than a murderer could also be accepted by the court if they changed their accounts, even without discounting any evidence. That’s just a hypothetical.
A comment about the break-in, if I may. Much has been made of the police pulling this theory out of left field to fit their theory of the case.
A few years ago, our home was burglarized while we were on vacation. The police came and one officer took me through the bedrooms while another officer took my husband through the familyroom and the outside of the house.
I later had a chuckle when I talked to our insurance agent and he said that the officers had separated us to make sure we were telling the same story, and that we had not staged the break-in ourselves.
The thought had never occurred to me, and probably doesn’t to most people.
But, at least in this country, the police are aware that this is more common than one would think, and it IS a part of a normal investigation.
The police WOULD most probably be considering whether or not the residents of the cottage could be involved right from the beginning.