Continuation Part 22: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Henri McPhee]

Also, the treatment of **independent** investigator Lou Smit shows how independent people can get vilified by insiders emotionally wedded to a theory.

I agree with that. In the initial and preliminary investigation of the Ramsey murder, Boulder County homicide detective Detective Steve Ainsworth had Fleet White and Chris Wolf and Santa Bill as the prime suspects in the murder of JonBenet Ramsey. He was supported in that by Detective Lou Smit. Steve Ainsworth later said on TV that he could never understand why he was rejected and ignored by the Boulder Police Department.

I agree there was no absolute certainty that Ainsworth was correct. It's just where there is smoke there is fire. I agree with what Lou Smit said that the Boulder Police Department had tunnel vision. Personally, I don't think that case will ever be solved now. It wasn't any Ramsey as the Boulder Police Department and FBI still insist.

As far as the Knox case is concerned I don't know enough about the details to pontificate about the case on this forum. It's just I have always thought Knox was a lucky girl to be American and have American pressure on her side because it happened in Italy. If it had happened in America she might have ended up with sixty years in prison.

 

[bagels]

I agree with that. In the initial and preliminary investigation of the Ramsey murder, Boulder County homicide detective Detective Steve Ainsworth had Fleet White and Chris Wolf and Santa Bill as the prime suspects in the murder of JonBenet Ramsey. He was supported in that by Detective Lou Smit. Steve Ainsworth later said on TV that he could never understand why he was rejected and ignored by the Boulder Police Department.

I agree there was no absolute certainty that Ainsworth was correct. It's just where there is smoke there is fire. I agree with what Lou Smit said that the Boulder Police Department had tunnel vision. Personally, I don't think that case will ever be solved now. It wasn't any Ramsey as the Boulder Police Department and FBI still insist.

As far as the Knox case is concerned I don't know enough about the details to pontificate about the case on this forum. It's just I have always thought Knox was a lucky girl to be American and have American pressure on her side because it happened in Italy. If it had happened in America she might have ended up with sixty years in prison.

There is actually a pretty similar case to the Knox case in America. The David Camm case. Camm was a slightly less sympathetic defendant than Knox, because he was a divorced middle aged male as opposed to a bubbly college female, but like Knox he was charged for a crime (murdering his ex wife and kids) on flaky evidence that was later revealed to be bogus and subsequent investigating revealed the actual killer, a known sex criminal named Charles Boney who left ample forensic evidence all over the scene and the crime matched his weird MO with taking the victim's shoes off.

And like the Knox case the DA refused to accept he had been wrong and decided to go ahead with prosecuting Camm after already having the perpetrator, and send two different people to prison for the same murder. But even as a less sympathetic defendant with far less publicity or support, David Camm was ultimately exonerated like Knox.

Sometimes a case is just bad, and equally bad anywhere in the world.

 

[Bill Williams]

It's probably not unusual for the police to focus on certain people close to the victim after crimes like this. For me what makes the Amanda Knox case so remarkable, and far more remarkable than the Jonbenet case, is that the police continued to focus on their early suspects after the killer was found and their initial theory of the crime about Amanda texting the killer (Patrick) about a secret meeting was proven false. The arrest of Rudy Guede on November 20th should have coincided with the release of Amanda Knox as it did Patrick Lumumba. Instead, they continue to hold her and drag her through a needless trial while they meanwhile convict and sentence the actual killer. I mean the absurdity is really striking, Italy doesn't even need the pretense of an unsolved crime to string somebody up, they can just throw people in jail for already solved crimes with perpetrators already serving sentences. I suppose it's a more efficient process

Many of us should be walking away from this, esp. at this late date where everything **IS** known about this case.

It's like you say, it's not as-if this is a who-done-it. Everyone is agreed that Rudy "done-it", and it took 7 1/2 years for Italy to finally declare that the other two didn't "done it" with Rudy.

As you say, this is not an unsolved crime. The wrong person **IS NOT** in prison waiting for some release of EDFs to prove he was really innocent all along.

The one striking difference between Boulder and Perugia is that in Boulder the police and prosecutor were at virtual war against each other. In Boulder the police went ahead with a Grand Jury which returned a recommendation for an indictment against the parents, and the prosecutor not only refused to prosecute - the prosecutor said publicly that there still was no evidence to focus on any one (or two) subject(s).

In Italy it does not seem that police and PM are of equal strength/power - in essence, Mignini controlled both the investigation and prosecution; and was a de fact member of the judiciary under the lingering Inquisitorial system.

What was common was the way police in Boulder and prosecutor/courts in Perugia/Florence treated independent experts. The real problem with the independents is that they were not **loyal** to the prosecution. For pete's sake, Maresca spying Vecchiotti having lunch with defence attorneys in Perugia was tantamount to treason!!!, rather than simply a sit-down for an expert to explain to a defence lawyer what the forensic-DNA review actually meant.

One envisions a world where it should have been up to Mignini/Comodi whether or not the defence could have even seen the independent expert's work!!! That goes back to the basic issue of disclosure - an issue that raised its head in both Boulder and Perugia. The police in Boulder wanted to control what a court would eventually see.

Lou Smits, the independent investigator hired by the Boulder D.A.'s office, amassed a large volume of files, which Smit claimed contained up to 60+ reasons why the parents couldn't have done it, and why the objective evidence, in fact, pointed to an unknown intruder.

The Boulder police served Smit with a suit requiring him to turn over all he had to them, with the intent to destroy his files. Smit was so troubled by this unprecedented suit, that he consulted with a local D.A. back in Texas. Between that D.A. and another law enforcement officer, they got legal protections from having to turn over the files. Smit, who died in 2006(?) left his files in the care of his daughter who is now guarding them.

Machiavelli in this very thread said it was normal and appropriate to destroy evidence once a case was finished. It's why he was not upset about Stefanoni mis-storing the bra-clasp so that it rusted out and became useless for further examination.

So - one clue that an agency or individual has become hopelessly confirmation biased is that they actually think it is appropriate to destroy/withhold exculpatory evidence; rather than simply turn it over as-is to the defence.

All of that were major issues in Perugia/Florence. Many of us should be walking away from this, esp. at this late date where everything **IS** known about this case. But all this stuff makes the thing so compelling to try to figure out! The unknown is: why'd the Perugian authorities want to continue past Nov 20th, 2007, against two who provably had nothing to do with the murder?

That's the only unknown.

 

[Bill Williams]

I agree with that. In the initial and preliminary investigation of the Ramsey murder, Boulder County homicide detective Detective Steve Ainsworth had Fleet White and Chris Wolf and Santa Bill as the prime suspects in the murder of JonBenet Ramsey. He was supported in that by Detective Lou Smit. Steve Ainsworth later said on TV that he could never understand why he was rejected and ignored by the Boulder Police Department.

I agree there was no absolute certainty that Ainsworth was correct. It's just where there is smoke there is fire. I agree with what Lou Smit said that the Boulder Police Department had tunnel vision. Personally, I don't think that case will ever be solved now. It wasn't any Ramsey as the Boulder Police Department and FBI still insist.

As far as the Knox case is concerned I don't know enough about the details to pontificate about the case on this forum. It's just I have always thought Knox was a lucky girl to be American and have American pressure on her side because it happened in Italy. If it had happened in America she might have ended up with sixty years in prison.

This is where the Italian system of (essentially) two trials, plus a final sign off by the Supreme Court perhaps contains some superior safeguards to the North American system, which came from British law. In British law it is essentially one kick at the cat - and if convicted then for all intents and purposes the burden of proof switches.

Don't forget, though, that Raffaele Sollecito had very good representation in Bongiorno. After the final conviction in Florence (subject to the sign-off on it by the ISC, which did not happen in this case) Bongiorno made the "separation strategy" the basis of appeal.

What the separation strategy was, was Nencini saying that evidence that tended to convict one, should be seen to convict both. The strategy was to get the ISC to consider that "even if it were true that Amanda Knox.......", what did that point have to do with Raffaele Sollecito?

Nencini, for instance, said it was provable that Knox had left Raffaele's apartment, because Nencini's interpretation of cell-tower evidence said that Amanda had to have taken/sent the SMS texts with Lumumba while away from Raffaele's, not at the apartment as she claimed.

Rather than Sollecito argue the factuality of that (which is easily done!), Bongiorno's argument was, "Even if she had gone out, what's that got to do with me?"

Of course, we also must continue with Nencini's flawed reasoning; because all this had happened BEFORE Knox was visually seen at Raffaele's by Jovovic (sp?) who came to the door to have Knox relay to Raffaele that he was not longer needed to take her to the train station.

What was important for Nencini in his flawed reasoning, was that Knox going out **earlier** had id'ed her as a liar about her whereabouts - even though it said nothing about whether or not AK/RS had gone out **after** being seen by Jovovic.

The separation strategy played well for the ISC, which ended up acquitting the pair on March 27, 2015. This was perhaps the equivalent of a US appeals' court simply throwing out a conviction and NOT ordering a new trial....

As for Knox's American status, for me the real issue is that since Knox was back in the US, there was no chance that she'd ever be extradited. Aside from some of the hater websites, there was very little, if any legal opinion in the US that Knox had been given a fair trial - for all the reasons you've probably read here.

The Italian legal system does seem to be sensitive to overseas opinion; and perhaps the ISC DID consider that to convict meant a nasty extradition fight that:

a) they would very well lose
b) that the Italian government itself might not even request!​

So who really knows - there have been many judges who have broken their collegial-silence to criticize the process as it lumbered along; that broken silence itself is unprecedented in North America.

But my point is that by the time of the March 2015 acquittals, the case against **Raffaele** as it was seen in Italy was finally being given its due. Raffaele had always been the forgotten man in all this, in the tabloid excess about Foxy Knoxy.

There was one program on Italian TV in the early part of 2015 (before the acqiuttals) where all they could do was assemble one Italian lawyer who would side with the prosecution. She offered weak, and long-worn factoids. The rest of the panel, including some from the audience openly ridiculed the process that had brought Sollecito to the brink of conviction and prison. One lawyer dared the "all powerful-PMs" to charge him with defamation for the sarcastic remarks he was making about tin-pot dictators within the system. The ridicule was thick, and there was no defamation charge forthcoming!!!

It was when Sollecito was seen as being acted-upon in Italy, not just Knox in America - that IMO is when this finally got sorted out.

 

[LondonJohn]

It's all very well to say that one benefit of the Italian criminal justice system is this automatic three-stage trial process for all serious crimes. And that would potentially be correct if the trials which comprised these three stages (especially the first two stages) were competent trials with just outcomes.

Unfortunately, the Knox/Sollecito trial fiasco has shown clearly that the structural and institutional failings of the first-trial and appeal-trial stages are so appalling that in fact a multi-stage trial process only succeeds in delaying justice. In the UK and US, there may only be one trial - but that trial is almost always properly conducted, in front of a properly-instructed jury, and with a proper, competent judge. And this means that in the vast majority of instances, the one and only trial in the UK and US "gets it right". In Italy, by contrast, statistics (of which the Knox/Sollecito trial is but one) show that the lower-level courts get it wrong a shocking proportion of the time. And actually I'd suggest that it may even be that the very fact that there's a multi-trial system has an adverse impact, in and of itself, on the competency and outcomes in the lower courts, especially the first-level court. It's almost as if the system is resigned to thinking "it doesn't really matter in the long haul if we screw this case up in the first court, since it'll probably get remedied by the higher court(s)."

And when you add into that mix the fundamental problems in the makeup and operation of first-level and appeal-level trials - where lay jurors are almost always directed in their verdicts by the two professional judges on the judicial panel, and where so many of those professional judges clearly cannot shake off the prejudice of accepting the PM's version of events as the "best truth", unless and until the defence can actively disprove it - it all adds up to a very, very bad system indeed.

Frankly, if I were on trial for a serious criminal offence, I would far, FAR rather be on trial in England or the US than in Italy. One good trial always trumps 2-3 shockingly inept trials.

 

[Bill Williams]

It's all very well to say that one benefit of the Italian criminal justice system is this automatic three-stage trial process for all serious crimes. And that would potentially be correct if the trials which comprised these three stages (especially the first two stages) were competent trials with just outcomes.

Unfortunately, the Knox/Sollecito trial fiasco has shown clearly that the structural and institutional failings of the first-trial and appeal-trial stages are so appalling that in fact a multi-stage trial process only succeeds in delaying justice. In the UK and US, there may only be one trial - but that trial is almost always properly conducted, in front of a properly-instructed jury, and with a proper, competent judge. And this means that in the vast majority of instances, the one and only trial in the UK and US "gets it right". In Italy, by contrast, statistics (of which the Knox/Sollecito trial is but one) show that the lower-level courts get it wrong a shocking proportion of the time. And actually I'd suggest that it may even be that the very fact that there's a multi-trial system has an adverse impact, in and of itself, on the competency and outcomes in the lower courts, especially the first-level court. It's almost as if the system is resigned to thinking "it doesn't really matter in the long haul if we screw this case up in the first court, since it'll probably get remedied by the higher court(s)."

And when you add into that mix the fundamental problems in the makeup and operation of first-level and appeal-level trials - where lay jurors are almost always directed in their verdicts by the two professional judges on the judicial panel, and where so many of those professional judges clearly cannot shake off the prejudice of accepting the PM's version of events as the "best truth", unless and until the defence can actively disprove it - it all adds up to a very, very bad system indeed.

Frankly, if I were on trial for a serious criminal offence, I would far, FAR rather be on trial in England or the US than in Italy. One good trial always trumps 2-3 shockingly inept trials.

Gee, can't even say something nice about Italy!!!

Ok, maybe I should have begun with, "In theory......."

Surprisingly, the Barbie Nadeau who appeared on CNN the night of the Dec 2009 Massei conviction said essentially the same. Someone will correct my memory, but from that night she reported back to the CNN anchor that up to 50% of 1st grade convictions are overturned at the second grade "do over".

In commenting specifically on what she had just heard - remember, this is Nadeau being "good" for her CNN paymasters - she said that the prosecution case was weak, but that the defence case was weaker. "This could very well be overturned at appeal."

That was Barbie Nadeau, who of all the 3rd grade tabloid hacks who'd argued back and forth for the previous two years about this, she was the most successful in monetizing her efforts.

I always think of Nadeau's comment - a friend to guilters - when those same guilters talk about the soundness of the Dec 2009 conviction, or how the Massei motivations report is a fair rendering for their guilt.

 

[Planigale]

Many of us should be walking away from this, esp. at this late date where everything **IS** known about this case.

It's like you say, it's not as-if this is a who-done-it. Everyone is agreed that Rudy "done-it", and it took 7 1/2 years for Italy to finally declare that the other two didn't "done it" with Rudy.

As you say, this is not an unsolved crime. The wrong person **IS NOT** in prison waiting for some release of EDFs to prove he was really innocent all along.

The one striking difference between Boulder and Perugia is that in Boulder the police and prosecutor were at virtual war against each other. In Boulder the police went ahead with a Grand Jury which returned a recommendation for an indictment against the parents, and the prosecutor not only refused to prosecute - the prosecutor said publicly that there still was no evidence to focus on any one (or two) subject(s).

In Italy it does not seem that police and PM are of equal strength/power - in essence, Mignini controlled both the investigation and prosecution; and was a de fact member of the judiciary under the lingering Inquisitorial system.

What was common was the way police in Boulder and prosecutor/courts in Perugia/Florence treated independent experts. The real problem with the independents is that they were not **loyal** to the prosecution. For pete's sake, Maresca spying Vecchiotti having lunch with defence attorneys in Perugia was tantamount to treason!!!, rather than simply a sit-down for an expert to explain to a defence lawyer what the forensic-DNA review actually meant.

One envisions a world where it should have been up to Mignini/Comodi whether or not the defence could have even seen the independent expert's work!!! That goes back to the basic issue of disclosure - an issue that raised its head in both Boulder and Perugia. The police in Boulder wanted to control what a court would eventually see.

Lou Smits, the independent investigator hired by the Boulder D.A.'s office, amassed a large volume of files, which Smit claimed contained up to 60+ reasons why the parents couldn't have done it, and why the objective evidence, in fact, pointed to an unknown intruder.

The Boulder police served Smit with a suit requiring him to turn over all he had to them, with the intent to destroy his files. Smit was so troubled by this unprecedented suit, that he consulted with a local D.A. back in Texas. Between that D.A. and another law enforcement officer, they got legal protections from having to turn over the files. Smit, who died in 2006(?) left his files in the care of his daughter who is now guarding them.

Machiavelli in this very thread said it was normal and appropriate to destroy evidence once a case was finished. It's why he was not upset about Stefanoni mis-storing the bra-clasp so that it rusted out and became useless for further examination.

So - one clue that an agency or individual has become hopelessly confirmation biased is that they actually think it is appropriate to destroy/withhold exculpatory evidence; rather than simply turn it over as-is to the defence.

All of that were major issues in Perugia/Florence. Many of us should be walking away from this, esp. at this late date where everything **IS** known about this case. But all this stuff makes the thing so compelling to try to figure out! The unknown is: why'd the Perugian authorities want to continue past Nov 20th, 2007, against two who provably had nothing to do with the murder?

That's the only unknown.

Yes, one of the problems here is that the prosecutor directs the investigation. One of the key errors in the investigation was the assumption that the break in was staged, that led to the next assumption that it was an 'inside' job. Hence suspicion fell on Knox. Investigation of the break in was limited, the evidence for the 'staging' became opinion on how logical a break in location it was, with no real expert testimony, and testimony about location of glass unsupported by photographic records. having a secure case against Guede it ceased to be in the prosecution's interest to investigate Guede for former criminal activity, any evidence against Guede would weaken the case against Sollecito / Knox. Any investigation of the break in would weaken the case against Knox / Sollecito. The eventual case against Guede for possession of stolen property was not driven by Mignini / Perugia police. What is striking is they continued to NOT investigate the complaints against Guede within their jurisdiction. The prosecution failed to prosecute Guede to the limit to preserve a case against Sollecito / Knox. The judges actually commented on the failure of the prosecution to bring a case against Guede for stabbing the victim, implicitly leaving as a judicial fact that Guede had not stabbed the victim despite the fact the case was never made.

As a prosecutor Mignini has to present a case against an accused. The police should investigate a crime not a suspect. By having the prosecutor direct the investigation, the investigation ceases to be of a crime and becomes of an individual.

 

[NotEvenWrong]

And like the Knox case the DA refused to accept he had been wrong and decided to go ahead with prosecuting Camm after already having the perpetrator, and send two different people to prison for the same murder.

But bagels, how do we know that Camm didn't team up with this other perpetrator (and at LEAST one other person, of course) and commit this murder together? What if there were demonic, pagan influences that we just don't understand? Clearly, Camm probably cleaned up the evidence of himself and the other person involved (maybe there were, like, 6 other people involved! Think of the magnitude of the clean up....). And left the evidence of the one perp, of course, to frame him. He was probably a sweet guy that just got manipulated by Camm.

Man, if I was more of an idiot and a little more sociopathic I bet I could make a quick buck or two if I wrote a book about this. Err I mean all for Kimzz!!!

 

[bagels]

But bagels, how do we know that Camm didn't team up with this other perpetrator (and at LEAST one other person, of course) and commit this murder together? What if there were demonic, pagan influences that we just don't understand? Clearly, Camm probably cleaned up the evidence of himself and the other person involved (maybe there were, like, 6 other people involved! Think of the magnitude of the clean up....). And left the evidence of the one perp, of course, to frame him. He was probably a sweet guy that just got manipulated by Camm.

Man, if I was more of an idiot and a little more sociopathic I bet I could make a quick buck or two if I wrote a book about this. Err I mean all for Kimzz!!!

Of course, that was the theory the prosecution went with once Boney showed up. What's interesting is in the Camm case the prosecutor did what I thought the prosecutor should have done in the Knox case if he wanted any hope of convincing people these two random people conspired to commit the crime together, which is get the perpetrator to testify against his supposed accomplice. Assuming the perp actually conspired with their alleged accomplice it should be no problem to present accurate, coherent, corroborated testimony against them.

The result of that testimony in the Camm case was about what I excepted from Guede had he testified in the Knox case, that is his story was completely unbelievable and uncorroborated and he utterly fell apart on cross examination when he couldn't describe anything about Camm (because they never met). No wonder Mignini and co worked their butts off to keep Guede off the stand.

The David Camm case is one of the few cases I have seen that could said to be a bit weaker than the Knox case, although it's a toss-up because at least David Camm is plausible as a suspect (ex-husband) vs a girl slaughtering her only native English speaking friend in the home they shared for no reason.

There are a couple Camm "guilters" most notably the victim's family. It's amazing how much emotion can completely ruin rational thought. David Camm was playing in a local basketball scrimmage in front of multiple eyewitnesses throughout the entire crime, while career sex criminal Charles Boney with a history of gun violence and sexual assault was leaving his prints at the scene and his DNA inside the victim's underwear.

If people can believe Camm guilty, the limits of what people will believe is essentially unbounded.

 

[Bill Williams]

As a prosecutor Mignini has to present a case against an accused. The police should investigate a crime not a suspect. By having the prosecutor direct the investigation, the investigation ceases to be of a crime and becomes of an individual.

This was exactly one of the points made in the JonBenét Ramsey case, by a prosecutor outside of the State of Colorado. He didn't exactly say that the Boulder police ran a "suspect-centric" investigation, but it amounted to that.

The height of irony was that in his report, Judge Massei discusses suspect-centrism, then goes on to reward the PLE for doing exactly that.

 

[Henri McPhee]

I don't know anything about that Camm case. I believe there are mistakes made and serious ones. Once an innocent person is convicted it is almost impossible to get out of prison, as has happened in the Jeffrey MacDonald case. It's the official principle of sticking to a mistake through thick and thin.

There was an interesting miscarriage of justice case on one of those true crime American TV shows yesterday in which two men were put on death row in Illinois for the murder of a little girl. Then a few years later a very similar murder of a little girl happened in Illinois. Brian Duigan was caught. He confessed to the original murder of the first girl and his DNA was later found on her due to advances in DNA technology. The death penalty was abolished in Illinois in 2011 but I suppose it could still come back.

In another case the father of that little girl Riley Fox was imprisoned after a false confession and he was put into prison until the real culprit was caught later on, and DNA proof provided.

A defense lawyer made the remark on TV that the police and FBI become attached to a theory. I forget what that lawyer said next, but it was along the lines that they then make the evidence up.

My memory of the Ramsey case was that the Ramseys were acquitted by the Grand Jury, and that the Boulder DA Alex Hunter was not too sorry about that result. There was no evidence against the Ramseys. Fleet White was reported to have burst into tears at the verdict.

In the Knox case it looks like there was media campaign to set her free instead of the usual media campaign to influence the court of public opinion against the accused person.

 

[NotEvenWrong]

In the Knox case it looks like there was media campaign to set her free instead of the usual media campaign to influence the court of public opinion against the accused person.

The thing you have to realize is that, for Knox, it started as a media campaign to influence the court of public opinion against the accused. The whole "Foxy Knoxy" she-devil slut omg moral Puritan outrage thing. When she is actually just a normal girl from Seattle. The prosecution was able to co-opt several internet communities (TJMK and PMF) and get them to post lies and slander about Knox and Sollecito on just about any forum, blog, or article that anyone can come in contact with. They tried to take over wikipedia as well.

To combat this propaganda campaign in the media, Knox's family hired a PR firm because that was literally the only thing they could do. Knox was getting smeared in the Italian media left and right and her reputation was being destroyed, so that the prosecution could secure an easy conviction on the outrage of the public. Despite having zero credible scientific evidence that she was at the scene. In fact, there is strong evidence she was at Raffaele's apartment when the murder occurred.

So yes, Knox's family did hire a PR firm, but that was to combat the propaganda campaign and media assassination that the prosecution started. They had to get the truth out because at that point, the trial process could not be even remotely fair. Knox was branded a devil. We still have some seriously mentally ill people who still buy into that whole narrative, and nothing will change their mind (shows you the power of bias and propaganda on people that do not have the ability to think critically).

Luckily, the truth did eventually come out and Knox is now free, and we know what actually happened with the corrupt prosecution and Italian judiciary. Some people aren't so lucky, and they are convicted and their lives are ruined by media smear campaigns. Knox, Sollecito, and their families had the courage to fight it in this case.

 

[bagels]

I don't know anything about that Camm case.

You should look into it. It is almost identical to the Knox case. They initially thought the person close to the victim first at the scene was guilty and believed it with such intensity it overruled any of their judgement. A more careful forensic examination of the crime scene revealed that, just like the Knox case, it was overflowing with the forensic profile of an actual criminal - the person who actually did the crime. In both cases they tried to say this random criminal, with no connection or ties to their initial suspect - was merely the accomplice with their initial suspect and just happened to leave all the evidence, not because they discovered an iota of evidence linking them together, but because they were desperate to avoid conceding their initial suspect was innocent and tried to salvage a connection from nothing.

 

[Vixen]

The thing you have to realize is that, for Knox, it started as a media campaign to influence the court of public opinion against the accused. The whole "Foxy Knoxy" she-devil slut omg moral Puritan outrage thing. When she is actually just a normal girl from Seattle. The prosecution was able to co-opt several internet communities (TJMK and PMF) and get them to post lies and slander about Knox and Sollecito on just about any forum, blog, or article that anyone can come in contact with. They tried to take over wikipedia as well.

To combat this propaganda campaign in the media, Knox's family hired a PR firm because that was literally the only thing they could do. Knox was getting smeared in the Italian media left and right and her reputation was being destroyed, so that the prosecution could secure an easy conviction on the outrage of the public. Despite having zero credible scientific evidence that she was at the scene. In fact, there is strong evidence she was at Raffaele's apartment when the murder occurred.

So yes, Knox's family did hire a PR firm, but that was to combat the propaganda campaign and media assassination that the prosecution started. They had to get the truth out because at that point, the trial process could not be even remotely fair. Knox was branded a devil. We still have some seriously mentally ill people who still buy into that whole narrative, and nothing will change their mind (shows you the power of bias and propaganda on people that do not have the ability to think critically).

Luckily, the truth did eventually come out and Knox is now free, and we know what actually happened with the corrupt prosecution and Italian judiciary. Some people aren't so lucky, and they are convicted and their lives are ruined by media smear campaigns. Knox, Sollecito, and their families had the courage to fight it in this case.

For someone who claims to hate witch hunting, intution and mental illness, it's hilarious you don't believe in scientific method and proof, that is DNA testing, footprint analysis, luminol, pathology, etc. It reminds me of the cadaver dogs in Portugal in the McCann case who sniffed out a cadaver in eleven different places and yet people think the dog is somehow mistaken, and people the world over should continue looking for 'sightings' of Maddie.

Wake up, smell the coffee. Science doesn't lie. Cadaver dogs are not 'mistaken'.

 

[bagels]

For someone who claims to hate witch hunting, intution and mental illness, it's hilarious you don't believe in scientific method and proof, that is DNA testing, footprint analysis, luminol, pathology, etc. It reminds me of the cadaver dogs in Portugal in the McCann case who sniffed out a cadaver in eleven different places and yet people think the dog is somehow mistaken, and people the world over should continue looking for 'sightings' of Maddie.

Wake up, smell the coffee. Science doesn't lie. Cadaver dogs are not 'mistaken'.

Some of the most esteemed DNA scientists in the world - from different countries - commented on the Knox case. How did that go again? lol

 

[Bill Williams]

For someone who claims to hate witch hunting, intution and mental illness, it's hilarious you don't believe in scientific method and proof, that is DNA testing, footprint analysis, luminol, pathology, etc. It reminds me of the cadaver dogs in Portugal in the McCann case who sniffed out a cadaver in eleven different places and yet people think the dog is somehow mistaken, and people the world over should continue looking for 'sightings' of Maddie.

Wake up, smell the coffee. Science doesn't lie. Cadaver dogs are not 'mistaken'.

Oh for Pete's sake. You hardly believe in science. If you did you'd quote one - just one - peer reviewed forensic DNA scientist who agrees with Stefanoni.

You're hilarious.

 

[Welshman]

Oh for Pete's sake. You hardly believe in science. If you did you'd quote one - just one - peer reviewed forensic DNA scientist who agrees with Stefanoni.

You're hilarious.

If there was valid scientific evidence against Amanda and Raffaele, Vixen would not need to tell lies such as Kurt Knox paying two million dollars to the PR firm.

 

[Matthew Best]

Cadaver dogs are not 'mistaken'.

Evidence please?

 

[Vixen]

Evidence please?

Evidence? Dogs' sense of smell is incredible. These dogs are trained from puphood to seek out all sorts of things, human blood, cadavers, drugs.

If an airport dog sniffs out drugs, it sniffs out drugs. Full stop.

Likewise, the DNA on the bra clasp belongs to Raff. There is no doubt.

 

[bagels]

Evidence? Dogs' sense of smell is incredible. These dogs are trained from puphood to seek out all sorts of things, human blood, cadavers, drugs.

If an airport dog sniffs out drugs, it sniffs out drugs. Full stop.

Likewise, the DNA on the bra clasp belongs to Raff. There is no doubt.

If only a DNA profile meant a guilty person we could save the money and time of trials altogether lol

Under that system by my count there would be about at least a half dozen people in prison for Meredith's murder right now.