• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 32

Numbers said:
One concern I have is that the recruitment of Italian prosecutors and judges is supposedly meritocratic - based on an exam given to (self-selecting) graduates of Italian law schools. However, once in office, these magistrates (the general Italian term for prosecutors and judges), at least as evidenced by the Knox - Sollecito case, display striking dysfunctions by unfairly interpreting Italian law or unfairly (arbitrarily) selecting the Italian procedural laws that they use in a trial, while unfairly evaluating evidence.
Click to expand...
One was quite unprepared for Italian judges replacing, innocent until proven guilty, with 'those who claim something must also prove it'. (Which perhaps applies to the prosecution, but not the defence - especially in matters not proven by the prosecution!)

Consider the 1st Cassazione ruling which overturned Hellmann's acquittals. It reasoned that it was no good for the defence to claim contamination of some of the DNA evidence, they must also demonstrate it.

Anywhere else other than a courtroom in a Western power, one might be tempted to let this settle the matter. Yet, surely, in any European or Westminster-style court, surely the rule is that, first, the prosecution must show that the DNA evidence is solid, and that contamination can be ruled out. Evidence must be entered - in a fashion that is cross-examinable - to show that the original DNA analysts did their job.

Not that the defence claimed that the whole thing could have been contamination - based on what the prosecution presented....

Does this really need to be stated overtly?

Out of the many amnesiac dysfunctions of the Italian courts with regard to this case, this is but one.
 
Bill Williams said:
One was quite unprepared for Italian judges replacing, innocent until proven guilty, with 'those who claim something must also prove it'. (Which perhaps applies to the prosecution, but not the defence - especially in matters not proven by the prosecution!)

Consider the 1st Cassazione ruling which overturned Hellmann's acquittals. It reasoned that it was no good for the defence to claim contamination of some of the DNA evidence, they must also demonstrate it.

Anywhere else other than a courtroom in a Western power, one might be tempted to let this settle the matter. Yet, surely, in any European or Westminster-style court, surely the rule is that, first, the prosecution must show that the DNA evidence is solid, and that contamination can be ruled out. Evidence must be entered - in a fashion that is cross-examinable - to show that the original DNA analysts did their job.

Not that the defence claimed that the whole thing could have been contamination - based on what the prosecution presented....

Does this really need to be stated overtly?

Out of the many amnesiac dysfunctions of the Italian courts with regard to this case, this is but one.
Click to expand...
Yes.

To be more specific, the prosecution never demonstrated that the impugned DNA results were not the result of contamination. The prosecution never explained why the impugned results were to be accepted when they were obtained contrary to the scientifically accepted forensic DNA methodology including collection, test methods, lack of replication, and the refusal of the prosecution to provide all the negative and positive controls as well as the original automatically recorded digital documentation of the data. Furthermore, the prosecution made no mention of the one negative control that showed contamination or the two positive controls that showed contamination.
 
Last edited:
We know about the "see you later" text message being totally misunderstood by the cops on duty due to Donnino's failings. The November 6th memoriale should have been interpreted as what it meant to Amanda, not solely what it meant to the cops, to establish "intent" which appears to be the operative word in calunnia. The Florence appeal court inferred that Lumumba would have been detained on the strength of the memoriale, yet that's not what was intended (intent) by Amanda. On the 6th November, an impartial interpreter should have been used to convey the intended meaning of the 1st memoriale to the cops on duty. It seems to me that the only way that the 1st memoriale could have been used against Lumumba is for both parties, i.e. the investigators and Amanda to be mutually certain that the concept of the memoriale was shareable since the same misunderstanding seems to have existed regarding the memoriale as with the interpretation of the text message.

I don't know how the Italian courts can recycle the memoriale in retrospect without reasoning that a competent interpreter could have been used to evaluate the true meaning of the memoriale and pre-empt the arrest of Lumumba. Italy could argue that to them, the 1st memoriale constitutes an unequivocal reiteration of slander, yet how can that be the case if Amanda and the ECHR say the opposite? IMO, that very contradiction indicates that the cops understanding of the 1st memoriale should have been subject to impartial interpretation at the time.

IMO the cops would have had no right to go out and arrest Lumumba without filtering the contents of the memoriale via a competent interpreter since it was written in English. I would argue that the failure to do so violated Amanda's human rights. No such interpreter existed at the time, which can't be corrected retrospectively with the calunnia reconviction. Even if Donnino had been consulted for her interpretation of the memoriale it wouldn't have mattered since the ECHR decided she wasn't impartial. There is also the fact that Amanda didn't have a lawyer to advise her on whether to write the memoriale, or not or at least give her guidance on the content; therefore, both violations are still active the way I see it. The ECHR has surely got to chuck this out.

Hoots
 
TomG said:
We know about the "see you later" text message being totally misunderstood by the cops on duty due to Donnino's failings. The November 6th memoriale should have been interpreted as what it meant to Amanda, not solely what it meant to the cops, to establish "intent" which appears to be the operative word in calunnia. The Florence appeal court inferred that Lumumba would have been detained on the strength of the memoriale, yet that's not what was intended (intent) by Amanda. On the 6th November, an impartial interpreter should have been used to convey the intended meaning of the 1st memoriale to the cops on duty. It seems to me that the only way that the 1st memoriale could have been used against Lumumba is for both parties, i.e. the investigators and Amanda to be mutually certain that the concept of the memoriale was shareable since the same misunderstanding seems to have existed regarding the memoriale as with the interpretation of the text message.

I don't know how the Italian courts can recycle the memoriale in retrospect without reasoning that a competent interpreter could have been used to evaluate the true meaning of the memoriale and pre-empt the arrest of Lumumba. Italy could argue that to them, the 1st memoriale constitutes an unequivocal reiteration of slander, yet how can that be the case if Amanda and the ECHR say the opposite? IMO, that very contradiction indicates that the cops understanding of the 1st memoriale should have been subject to impartial interpretation at the time.

IMO the cops would have had no right to go out and arrest Lumumba without filtering the contents of the memoriale via a competent interpreter since it was written in English. I would argue that the failure to do so violated Amanda's human rights. No such interpreter existed at the time, which can't be corrected retrospectively with the calunnia reconviction. Even if Donnino had been consulted for her interpretation of the memoriale it wouldn't have mattered since the ECHR decided she wasn't impartial. There is also the fact that Amanda didn't have a lawyer to advise her on whether to write the memoriale, or not or at least give her guidance on the content; therefore, both violations are still active the way I see it. The ECHR has surely got to chuck this out.

Hoots
Click to expand...
TomG, thanks for your excellent summary that points out why the calunnia trial cannot be and should not have been redone on the basis of the alleged evidence such as Memoriale 1. The only "sensible" way to redo the calunnia trial would be to start with a new interrogation of Knox with a defense lawyer and a fair interpreter present. Of course, the Italian authorities would not do that - their interrogation method depends on a naive suspect (a supposed "witness") without a lawyer and with a biased interpreter. But that is why the ECHR judgment* points out that the unfairness of the pre-trial proceedings makes the case irreparable and taints the entire proceedings (Paragraphs 166 and 187). The ECHR judgment implies that the Italian authorities use their laws on "nullity" to dismiss the case (Paragraph 105, citing CPP Articles 178 - 182)).

* https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-189422
 
Last edited:
A recent New York Times article about the award of compensation in a federal lawsuit to two men in Chicago who had been exonerated after being wrongfully convicted of murder and serving over 16 years each in prison states that the two successfully argued in their lawsuit that they had been framed and coerced into making false confessions.

The framing or fabrication of evidence included, at a minimum, the police coercing false confessions and the prosecution presenting photographs of a door that were selectively chosen to not show the working security camera and fob entry control that would have supported the defense of one of the young men that he had not left his apartment during the relevant time.

This reminded me of the behavior of the police and prosecution in the Knox - Sollecito case (although there was a greater level of violence during the interrogations in the Chicago case). The framing in the Knox - Sollecito case was perhaps more subtle and seemingly designed to be "excused" as misjudgments or mistakes, but in my opinion, it began before the coercive interrogation. I believe it started as early as the unjustified and unexamined assumptions of the police or prosecutor that only a female murderer would cover a dead victim's body or that the break-in evidence (rock tossed through a window located above a grill that could serve as a ladder) was a fabricated inside job employed as a cover-up. It also included the miscount in the comparison of the crime scene shoe print marks with the indents on Sollecito's shoe, as well as the failure of the authorities to test (or their suppression of the test) the seeming semen stains on the pillow. Of course, it also included all the misconduct of the police, prosecutor, and interpreter during the interrogation. (This list is not necessarily complete.)

If the prosecution not showing the relevant photographs - which were in their possession - in a murder trial in Chicago may be called framing, then I believe that we may rightly call all the misconduct, misjudgments, and "mistakes" of the police and prosection in the Knox - Sollecto case "framing".

Here's the relevant paragraph from the NY Times article:

Mr. Fulton and Mr. Mitchell each filed a federal lawsuit in 2020 against the City of Chicago, the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office and several Chicago police officers, arguing that the men had been framed and were coerced into giving false confessions.
Click to expand...
Source (may be behind a paywall):
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/11/us/chicago-murder-wrongful-conviction-award.html

A summary of the Chicago case including the lawsuit and award of compensation may be found at:
www.cbsnews.com

Jury awards $120 million to two men wrongfully convicted of 2003 murder

John Fulton and Anthony Mitchell both spent more than 16 years in prison before their convictions were overturned in 2019.
www.cbsnews.com www.cbsnews.com

Details of the Chicago case may be found at:

John Fulton - National Registry of Exonerations

www.law.umich.edu www.law.umich.edu
 
I recently wrote a Reddit post I think might be of interest (and possibly something that has been looked at by others here). I've copied it below buy edited it somewhat due to feedback from Reddit commenters:

A while back I looked through the phone records, trying to match the calls and texts made by Meredith, Amanda, Raffaele and all the others (having Rudy's phone records would be nice, but alas, the only ones I've found online actually belong to someone else). Regarding Meredith's English phone (Sony Ericsson K700i, running on the Wind network), we have the incoming MMS at 22:13:29 Nov 1st, followed by a text from Meredith's friend Karl (number saved in address book) at 00:10:31, Nov 2nd: "If i say you looked very hot in your vampire costume will you condemn me as a deviant?!"

At 10:10 Robyn Butterworth has arrived at the school in the belief that they had class and she would meet Meredith to get her book back. With no class or Meredith, she calls her twice, at 10:10:58 and 10:11:50, but none of the calls are answered, and are sent to voicemail (00447802091901). She then texts at 10:13:26 ("Dont think cinema is on. But can we meet up somewhere to get that book?x"). With no answer, Robyn calls again at 11:02:07, followed by a second text at 11:26:53 ("Merdi are you awake can i come and get my book please.x") and a fourth call at 12:05:14. Two minutes later, at 12:07:39, Amanda makes her first call from Raffaele's apartment. It's one of those last two calls that causes the phone to be discovered in the bushes of the Lana-Biscarini garden.

first-alert-v0-sqd29tf5f0ne1.png

But there is another call made that morning, at 09:04:28. Like those of Robyn and Amanda it was unanswered, and like Amanda's first call it was long enough to trigger a response from the voice mail.

The number is 448456306967, and unlike Karl, Robyn and Amanda, it is not in Meredith's address book, nor does it occur in the logs before this very moment. It does, however, occur after. At 17:04 on Nov 2nd, while everyone was at the Questura being interviewed, the number called again. The phone was out of range of the Wind network, so Vodafone picked it up instead with roaming:

first-alert-v0-r70s110pi0ne1.png

The two calls can also be found in the BT records, showing just how similar in length they are:

first-alert-v0-6j3x4uwej0ne1.png

And it doesn't end here. Wind logs exist for Nov 3rd to Nov 6th, but the scanner didn't include the origin number, so all we can see here are four missed call of the same length:

first-alert-v0-7gnnrflbk0ne1.png

However, from the original logs we can find the origin number for the 10:06:41 Nov 3rd call, and it is indeed 448456306967:

first-alert-v0-svlgmc5sk0ne1.png
And from the contents of Meredith's phone, we have a missed call log that shows the 13:13:27 call on Nov 6th, and since the log overwrites a missed call when a new one from the same number comes, we know that the call at 09:27:25 was also from the same number:

first-alert-v0-hrc0d6mjl0ne1.png

So the same number calls Meredith's phone five, possibly six times after her death, with the first call before her body was discovered. So what is this number? Who was calling her?

As it turns out, in 2007 private company Adeptra rolled out the function called "First Alert" for UK banks, including Lloyds, Abbey and Nationwide. When suspicious activity occurred on a card, an automated call would be placed to the card-holder's phone with the option to either freeze the card or allow the transaction (as far as I can see, if the call went unanswered, nothing would happen - neither freeze nor transaction). During 2007 several people wrote online about their experiences with First Alert, and they gave the number that called them - 08456306967.

first-alert-v0-1khl0ruti3ne1.png

So at 9:04 Nov 2nd someone attempts to use Meredith's card. Again, at 17:04 the same day, then 10:06 the next day (Nov 3rd) and possibly at 13:43 the same day - then a gap until it happens again at Nov 6th, 9:27 and 13:13. Based on further comments by people with experience, the first call came quickly following the suspicious event, followed by a reminder later that day and another the following morning. This means there were likely two attempts that we can see, one ca 9:00 Nov 2nd (generating call and reminders on the 2nd and 3rd) then another Nov 6th ca 9:25.

We know this can't be Amanda or Raffaele, who were in jail during by the 6th. That leaves Rudy Guede, whose DNA was found on Meredith's purse and on whose path home Meredith's phones were found discarded. According to both Rudy and his friends, he stayed up until the early hours in the morning of Nov 2nd, then went to sleep before going to visit his friends in the late afternoon of the same day, telling them he was going to Milan the next day. The next day, Rudy took the train to Florence some time after 16:00, then bought a ticket to Bologna as he claimed he couldn't afford the whole trip to Milan. About midnight Rudy was in Milan where a friend met him at a discoteque and claimed Rudy said he was heading to Stuttgart (Rudy himself would later say he didn't plan on going to any city in Germany in particular and just ended up there). So Rudy would have tried to employ the cards first in Perugia on the 2nd, then again in Stuttgart Germany on the 6th.

What is remarkable about this is that no one at the Perugia police appears to have noticed this. No document or expert witness ever spoke of these calls - it appears no one knew what they were, and they were only used to determine the Wind cell that was used at 9:04 Nov 2nd, confirming the phone was in the Lana-Biscarini garden at the time. But if they had picked up on this, it is quite possible that they could have caught Rudy before Meredith's body was even removed from the scene.

When I posted the above in the Reddit group I got some good feedback (my original thought was that each call was a separate attempt, but a commenter described reminders first in the afternoon then the next morning - while confirming that the calls began immediately after the failed attempt) but also some pushback as someone tried to claim Meredith's withdrawal of her rent money - logged on Oct 31st - caused the alert. I don't think it holds water - a 250 euro withdrawal made with a valid PIN would not cause suspicion, automated or not, and certainly not two days after it was logged and several days more since the actual withdrawal. It seems clear to me. Meredith's cards were stolen. The very next morning she gets her first ever alert of suspicious card activity.
 
FergusMcDuck said:
I recently wrote a Reddit post I think might be of interest (and possibly something that has been looked at by others here). I've copied it below buy edited it somewhat due to feedback from Reddit commenters:

A while back I looked through the phone records, trying to match the calls and texts made by Meredith, Amanda, Raffaele and all the others (having Rudy's phone records would be nice, but alas, the only ones I've found online actually belong to someone else). Regarding Meredith's English phone (Sony Ericsson K700i, running on the Wind network), we have the incoming MMS at 22:13:29 Nov 1st, followed by a text from Meredith's friend Karl (number saved in address book) at 00:10:31, Nov 2nd: "If i say you looked very hot in your vampire costume will you condemn me as a deviant?!"

At 10:10 Robyn Butterworth has arrived at the school in the belief that they had class and she would meet Meredith to get her book back. With no class or Meredith, she calls her twice, at 10:10:58 and 10:11:50, but none of the calls are answered, and are sent to voicemail (00447802091901). She then texts at 10:13:26 ("Dont think cinema is on. But can we meet up somewhere to get that book?x"). With no answer, Robyn calls again at 11:02:07, followed by a second text at 11:26:53 ("Merdi are you awake can i come and get my book please.x") and a fourth call at 12:05:14. Two minutes later, at 12:07:39, Amanda makes her first call from Raffaele's apartment. It's one of those last two calls that causes the phone to be discovered in the bushes of the Lana-Biscarini garden.

View attachment 59451

But there is another call made that morning, at 09:04:28. Like those of Robyn and Amanda it was unanswered, and like Amanda's first call it was long enough to trigger a response from the voice mail.

The number is 448456306967, and unlike Karl, Robyn and Amanda, it is not in Meredith's address book, nor does it occur in the logs before this very moment. It does, however, occur after. At 17:04 on Nov 2nd, while everyone was at the Questura being interviewed, the number called again. The phone was out of range of the Wind network, so Vodafone picked it up instead with roaming:

View attachment 59452

The two calls can also be found in the BT records, showing just how similar in length they are:

View attachment 59453

And it doesn't end here. Wind logs exist for Nov 3rd to Nov 6th, but the scanner didn't include the origin number, so all we can see here are four missed call of the same length:

View attachment 59454

However, from the original logs we can find the origin number for the 10:06:41 Nov 3rd call, and it is indeed 448456306967:

View attachment 59455
And from the contents of Meredith's phone, we have a missed call log that shows the 13:13:27 call on Nov 6th, and since the log overwrites a missed call when a new one from the same number comes, we know that the call at 09:27:25 was also from the same number:

View attachment 59456

So the same number calls Meredith's phone five, possibly six times after her death, with the first call before her body was discovered. So what is this number? Who was calling her?

As it turns out, in 2007 private company Adeptra rolled out the function called "First Alert" for UK banks, including Lloyds, Abbey and Nationwide. When suspicious activity occurred on a card, an automated call would be placed to the card-holder's phone with the option to either freeze the card or allow the transaction (as far as I can see, if the call went unanswered, nothing would happen - neither freeze nor transaction). During 2007 several people wrote online about their experiences with First Alert, and they gave the number that called them - 08456306967.

View attachment 59457

So at 9:04 Nov 2nd someone attempts to use Meredith's card. Again, at 17:04 the same day, then 10:06 the next day (Nov 3rd) and possibly at 13:43 the same day - then a gap until it happens again at Nov 6th, 9:27 and 13:13. Based on further comments by people with experience, the first call came quickly following the suspicious event, followed by a reminder later that day and another the following morning. This means there were likely two attempts that we can see, one ca 9:00 Nov 2nd (generating call and reminders on the 2nd and 3rd) then another Nov 6th ca 9:25.

We know this can't be Amanda or Raffaele, who were in jail during by the 6th. That leaves Rudy Guede, whose DNA was found on Meredith's purse and on whose path home Meredith's phones were found discarded. According to both Rudy and his friends, he stayed up until the early hours in the morning of Nov 2nd, then went to sleep before going to visit his friends in the late afternoon of the same day, telling them he was going to Milan the next day. The next day, Rudy took the train to Florence some time after 16:00, then bought a ticket to Bologna as he claimed he couldn't afford the whole trip to Milan. About midnight Rudy was in Milan where a friend met him at a discoteque and claimed Rudy said he was heading to Stuttgart (Rudy himself would later say he didn't plan on going to any city in Germany in particular and just ended up there). So Rudy would have tried to employ the cards first in Perugia on the 2nd, then again in Stuttgart Germany on the 6th.

What is remarkable about this is that no one at the Perugia police appears to have noticed this. No document or expert witness ever spoke of these calls - it appears no one knew what they were, and they were only used to determine the Wind cell that was used at 9:04 Nov 2nd, confirming the phone was in the Lana-Biscarini garden at the time. But if they had picked up on this, it is quite possible that they could have caught Rudy before Meredith's body was even removed from the scene.

When I posted the above in the Reddit group I got some good feedback (my original thought was that each call was a separate attempt, but a commenter described reminders first in the afternoon then the next morning - while confirming that the calls began immediately after the failed attempt) but also some pushback as someone tried to claim Meredith's withdrawal of her rent money - logged on Oct 31st - caused the alert. I don't think it holds water - a 250 euro withdrawal made with a valid PIN would not cause suspicion, automated or not, and certainly not two days after it was logged and several days more since the actual withdrawal. It seems clear to me. Meredith's cards were stolen. The very next morning she gets her first ever alert of suspicious card activity.
Click to expand...
Well I'm impressed! You just proved, or at the very least provided significant evidence that Amanda and Raffaele could not have killed Meredith.

This information was available when the murder happened and had it been found at the time the whole world, but most importantly Amanda and Raffaele would have avoid the whole sick dark comedy of the following years which sadly is still ongoing!!
 
Amanda has posted a short video on Instagram explaining the current position with the calunnia reconviction. She is waiting for the motivation report to be released so they are in a "holding pattern" until that happens. She said that she is hopeful that there are grounds for appeal.
 
One of the important ECHR case law principles - which by the CoE treaty Italy must follow - is that judgments (of conviction or otherwise adverse to a defendant) must be adequately reasoned. This means that the conviction must be logically supported by relevant, credible, and reliable evidence and that the relevant defense arguments must be adequately addressed in the reasoning.

The recent final calunnia re-conviction of Knox (among other provisional and final convictions or adverse judgments in the Knox - Sollecito case) is not likely to satisfy the ECHR case law principle of adequate reasoning.

A recent ECHR judgment, Mustafa Aydin v. Turkiye (Turkey) 6696/20 summarizes some of the relevant ECHR case law principles required for a judgment to be considered adequately reasoned in paragraphs 52 and 60, including the ECHR cases cited in paragraph 60.
 
The Guardian's Simon Hattenstone wrote, "But her mother convinced her to go [to a meeting of exonerees]. One of many moving moments in the book is when Knox turns up, paralysed with fear, and two young men approach her. They see how nervous she is, how reluctant to be there, and tell her: “You don’t have to explain a thing, little sister. We know.”" This is an excellent article, but it is not exactly a comfortable read.
 
Chris_Halkides said:
The Guardian's Simon Hattenstone wrote, "But her mother convinced her to go [to a meeting of exonerees]. One of many moving moments in the book is when Knox turns up, paralysed with fear, and two young men approach her. They see how nervous she is, how reluctant to be there, and tell her: “You don’t have to explain a thing, little sister. We know.”" This is an excellent article, but it is not exactly a comfortable read.
Click to expand...
Another notable statement in the Guardian article is this quote from an exoneree:
Thank God you got wrongly convicted, Amanda, because before a little girl from the suburbs of Seattle, a college-educated white girl, got wrongly convicted, no one believed that it was real. So I’m sorry for everything you had to go through, but thank God you did, because now it’s undeniable.
Click to expand...

Yet another, where Knox describes Mignini's views:
He’s said publicly that he now thinks that I had nothing to do with the murder, but that I was still physically present. So we go back to what was being told to me in my interrogation room. He says things to me like, ‘I know you’re not lying. I just think that you don’t remember what really happened’, which is incredibly patronising.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
From the article:

All of this was reported at the time as if it was evidence against her.
Click to expand...

That also goes the other way. All this dirty laundry, exaggerated or fictional stories, slut shaming, vitriol, it was fine because it was considered evidence against her that would bring justice to Meredith. If true crime has taught me anything it's that to get seemingly "good" humans to behave appallingly towards another is to make them convinced they deserve it. If Amanda is a murderer, she deserves it all

The bits about Mignini are interesting. I thought she was naive to reach out, given what he is still doing with the Narducci case - he is still the same - but she appears more clear-eyed than I thought.
 
Last edited:
FergusMcDuck said:
From the article:

That also goes the other way. All this dirty laundry, exaggerated or fictional stories, slut shaming, vitriol, it was fine because it was considered evidence against her that would bring justice to Meredith. If true crime has taught me anything it's that to get seemingly "good" humans to behave appallingly towards another is to make them convinced they deserve it. If Amanda is a murderer, she deserves it all

The bits about Mignini are interesting. I thought she was naive to reach out, given what he is still doing with the Narducci case - he is still the same - but she appears more clear-eyed than I thought.
Click to expand...
Also, the "dirty laundry" campaign reminds me of a statement in Preston's and Spezi's book Monster of Florence, to the effect that the authorities in Italy not only amass and release alleged evidence in an attempt to convict a suspect but also in an attempt to destroy that person's reputation.
 
Last edited:
FergusMcDuck said:
From the article:



That also goes the other way. All this dirty laundry, exaggerated or fictional stories, slut shaming, vitriol, it was fine because it was considered evidence against her that would bring justice to Meredith. If true crime has taught me anything it's that to get seemingly "good" humans to behave appallingly towards another is to make them convinced they deserve it. If Amanda is a murderer, she deserves it all

The bits about Mignini are interesting. I thought she was naive to reach out, given what he is still doing with the Narducci case - he is still the same - but she appears more clear-eyed than I thought.
Click to expand...
So true. I see it happening right now in our own politics concerning mass deportations of people without due process.
 
Apologies if this has been covered...

Just saw Knox on one of the US morning shows, discussing her book, 'Free'. She was asked about seeking out and actually meeting with Guiliano Mignini.

Family and fellow exonerees thought she was crazy. Yet after she and he rehashed 'the case', disagreeing on more than they agreed - they both shifted gears, both trying to find the humanity in the other.

For her, the concession she offered was her forgiveness.

From him in return, was an incredible admission, acc. to Knox. That if he'd known the 37-year old version of Amanda Knox, that this was - as he was now convinced to be true - the *real* Amanda Knox....

... that he would never have prosecuted her.

One has to sit with that claim for a minute. Kudos to Knox - probably to Mignini as well - for both being committed 17 1/2 years later - of seeing the humanity in the other.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom