The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
John Doerr, Haven Monahan, and Now Amanda Knox: Great White Defendant Privilege in Action
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

From the NYT:

Amanda Knox Acquitted of 2007 Murder by Italy’s Highest Court

It turns out that the real killer was … the black street criminal. What kind of Law & Order episode would that be? Dick Wolf made a fortune putting on countless “Law & Order” episodes in which the killer turned out not to be the Rudy Guede-like thug, like most of the time in real life, but actually an affluent white person. Life would be so much more entertaining if well-to-do, good-looking white people like Amanda Knox, Haven Monahan, and John Doer were going around murdering, raping, and discriminating all the time.

So, we need a new term: Great White Defendant Privilege. The definition of Great White Defendant Privilege is that when the wheels of the justice system finally get done grinding, it often turns out that the Great White Defendant tried and convicted in the press didn’t actually do it (or, as in the case of the Night of Broken Glass fraternity gang rape at UVA, didn’t actually exist), and the justice system lets them go just because they are innocent (or nonexistent).

I’m not very good at spreading memes, but one that I’ve had a tiny bit of success with is getting people to remember Tom Wolfe’s riff on Captain Ahab’s obsession in Moby Dick: “the hunt for the Great White Defendant.” Because I refer to it so much because it’s so useful for describing things that seem like news but turn out not to b), I posted the full length version of the passage from Wolfe’s 1987 novel The Bonfire of the Vanities here during the George Zimmerman whoop-tee-doo. But here’s a more tightly edited version:

An assistant D.A. in Major Offenses has started calling [D.A.] Abe Weiss “Captain Ahab,” and now they all did. Weiss was notorious in his obsession for publicity, even among a breed, the district attorney, that was publicity-mad by nature. …

Every assistant D.A. in the Bronx … shared Captain Ahab’s mania for the Great White Defendant. For a start, it was not pleasant to go through life telling yourself, “What I do for a living is, I pack blacks and Latins off to jail.” …

It wasn’t that it was morally wrong … It was that it was in bad taste. So it made the boys uneasy, this eternal prosecution of the blacks and Latins. …

Not that they weren’t guilty. … But the poor bastards behind the wire mesh barely deserved the term criminal if by criminal you had in mind the romantic notion of someone who has a goal and seeks to achieve it through some desperate way outside the law. No, they were simple-minded incompetents, most of them, and they did unbelievably stupid, vile things. …

The press couldn’t even see these cases. It was just poor people killing poor people. …

Captain Ahab wasn’t so ridiculous, after all. Press coverage! Ray and Jimmy could laugh all they wanted, but Weiss had made sure the entire city knew his name. Weiss had an election coming up, and the Bronx was 70 percent black and Latin, and he was going to make sure the name Abe Weiss was pumped out to them on every channel that existed. He might not do much else, but he was going to do that.

 
Hide 333 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /isteve/haven-monahan-john-doerr-and-now-amanda-knox-three-great-white-defendants-walk-in-one-week/#comment-909379
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  2. Anon says: • Disclaimer

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  3. SPMoore8 says:

    I have to admit: proof of God’s existence twice in one day? It must be time for Holy Week.

    It seems like just a year ago where an Italian court reinstated Knox’ conviction and demanded that she spend something like 30 years in an Italian jail. Meanwhile, the Ivory Coast native who actually had left DNA at the murder scene of Meredith Kercher, who fled, and was apprehended in German, was able to cop a plea by implicating Amanda and her boyfriend, receiving a much shorter sentence, and last I looked, was already eligible for parole.

    I am glad this is over; or, I hope this is over. It seems it will never go away. The bigger problem the Italian justice system has now is how to handle the actual killer.

    PS: I have to add, I watch cop shows with my wife frequently, and I am annoyed that most of the time when there is a black guy who is not an obvious thug he invariably gets killed by the halfway point. I mean, they ought to give a brother a break once in awhile: let him not be guilty, let him live, and let his family live. But it almost never works out that way.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  4. The NYT article on Knox acquittal doesn’t mention convicted killer Rudy Guede until paragraph far down the page.

    NYT commenters are mostly sane in this case!

    The whole episode was a “nifonging” Italian style.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  5. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    Read More
    • Replies: @donut
    Where have you gone Bernhard Goetz a nation turns it's lonely eyes to you .

    Prior to the criminal trial, the media reported that Cabey had been shot on the fourth shot and then again on the fifth shot, with Goetz saying, "You don't look too bad, here's another," or, "You seem all right, here's another."[24] This sequence of shots was discredited at the criminal trial when it was revealed that Cabey was shot once in the left side; however, some media still reported[25] this sequence long after the criminal trial.

    " however, some media still reported[25] this sequence long after the criminal trial."

    Guess which media .
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. foxy says:

    come on Amanda Knox has some role in it.you are blinded by the bias.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    There could be a larger point lurking here. Of all the major con-right columnists, only Ann Coulter (a former attorney) has consistently written that she believes that Knox was indeed the guilty one, the killer, and that she simply got away with it.
    , @No name
    I think she had something to do with it, though I don't think she killed her or helped to kill her. Maybe she walked in on it as it was happening. She did confess and try to frame another black guy, for which she was convicted, and it's not like the Italian court system is the Afghan court system. The American media was completely on her side as well, constantly presenting her as a victim. I think you'd be hard pressed to find any news story that suggested she was guilty, much less one that presented it with a racial angle like Zimmerman.

    On a side note, I'm really unclear on the whole concept of false confessions. I can't imagine a scenario where I know that I 100% did not commit a crime but confess to it anyway. I'm sure it happens but it just seems dubious. If anyone has any data on false confessions I'd like to hear it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. PA says:

    “Vibrant” has been one of your best memes.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  8. Dave Pinsen says: • Website

    For the benefit of any iSteve readers who, for some reason, still haven’t read Bonfire of the Vanities, you should post a couple more excerpts to entice them. Two ideas: the scene where the assistant D.A.s get their big office perk, the free sandwiches, and the scene where they mayor’s aide readies him for that day’s “plaques for blacks” session.

    Read More
    • Replies: @donut
    His description of Peter Fallow waking up with a hangover was awe inspiring , it almost gave me one , sort of a sympathetic hangover .

    When ever I used to see the utterly vile Peirs Morgan I would think of Peter Fallow . Now that Morgan has been deported back to Pakistan or where ever , we have John Oliver , another refugee from the wreckage of Europe to point out our failings . Smug wanker .

    , @The most deplorable one

    Two ideas: the scene where the assistant D.A.s get their big office perk, the free sandwiches, and the scene where they mayor’s aide readies him for that day’s “plaques for blacks” session.
     
    However, I bet he didn't predict Affirmative Action High Tech Positions for women!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. … Great White Defendant tried and convicted in the press didn’t actually do it … and the justice system lets them go just because they are innocent (or nonexistent).

    There it is. And it’s going global.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  10. Lagertha says:

    I agree with an earlier poster…AK may not be who she presents herself in the USA….And, obviously, she has not come clean about her time in Italy, so why, WTF why, would she risk that, and her next professional life, for the rest of her life, to be defined by what happened in Italy when her roommate died? Dead people have a terrible habit of following you to your grave ( theater, opera, WTFE) A dead body; some one is gonna go down.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wilkey
    What's to come clean about? The fact that she was a horny, pot-smoking, liberal American College student from the Pacific Northwest who was mildly indifferent to the death of a roommate she didn't like? That's a very big club. There are people who don't much give a shit when other people die. There are people who laugh about it. The girl who told me Michael Jackson died was smirking as she said it.
    , @Art Deco
    AK may not be who she presents herself in the USA….
    --
    Read the interviews with her lapsed boyfriends and view the videos you can find of her online and look at her personal history. She's a standard-issue co-ed from Seattle. Sollecito is a computer geek.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. @foxy
    come on Amanda Knox has some role in it.you are blinded by the bias.

    There could be a larger point lurking here. Of all the major con-right columnists, only Ann Coulter (a former attorney) has consistently written that she believes that Knox was indeed the guilty one, the killer, and that she simply got away with it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jasper Been
    I remember the paleo-libertarian and staunch Zionist Ilana Mercer also believed Amanada Knox had something to do with it.... she & Larry Auster got into it, invectives were hurled, etc. Truly entertaining.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. unit472 says:

    It would be hard to imagine a ‘Greater White Defendant’ than Bill Clinton and The Rodhamster yet, like a lot of things in life, the having is not the same as the desire particularly when your defendant is your own reflection. It is difficult to catalogue the sleaze that emanated from the Clinton White House and that was part of their ability to survive. Every few weeks a new episode of tawdry, corrupt or venal misconduct would erupt and the push the last episode into the realm of ‘old news’. For 8 plus years the drumbeat went on. Gennifer Flowers morphed into Paula Jones into Monica Lewinsky with a half dozen or so lesser bimbo eruptions along the way. John Huang became Charlie Trie then Buddhist Monks and Suma Ching Hai until Clinton was selling pardons to donors on his last day in office. The Rodhamster even tried to steal White House furniture to decorate the first real house they ever owned. Now the Rodhamster is back at it again even retaining the same attorney, David Kendall, who has made a lucrative career out of these scoundrels. Question is, do the Democrats have the stomach for another round of circling the wagons to protect them.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Paul Mendez
    I notice you politely skipped over the issue of "Arkancide" -- the alarming frequency with which people close to the Clintons wind up dead under mysterious circumstances.

    Where there's smoke, there's fire. Even if 95% of the murders, suicides and fatal accidents of Clinton associates have nothing to do with their dealings with the Clintons, that still leaves the blood of 2 or 3 people on Bill and/or Hillary's hands. More people than I've ever killed.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. Truth says:
    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  14. Danindc says:

    Even my girl Ann Coulter bought the Knox was the murderer angle. Ehhh whadaya gonna do.

    Read More
    • Replies: @BubbaJoe
    I saw that too. Setting aside her warmongering neocon degeneracy, AC is pretty sharp. She presents a variety of arguments against Knox...

    http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2011-09-07.html

    http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2013-04-03.html

    It seems one red flag for AC was the US media's assumption of innocence. (I recall the British press being far more suspicious of Knox, and like acting, they do it better than we do). Maybe she's just trying to bolster her "Republicans are the real defenders of black American interests" shtick. Maybe, just as in Bonfire of the Vanities or the Levy/Condit thing, Knox was up to something else untoward that night. I'm no expert on the case, but I do get a "Gone Girl" vibe from Knox. Still, on balance, I don't think she did it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  15. No name says:
    @foxy
    come on Amanda Knox has some role in it.you are blinded by the bias.

    I think she had something to do with it, though I don’t think she killed her or helped to kill her. Maybe she walked in on it as it was happening. She did confess and try to frame another black guy, for which she was convicted, and it’s not like the Italian court system is the Afghan court system. The American media was completely on her side as well, constantly presenting her as a victim. I think you’d be hard pressed to find any news story that suggested she was guilty, much less one that presented it with a racial angle like Zimmerman.

    On a side note, I’m really unclear on the whole concept of false confessions. I can’t imagine a scenario where I know that I 100% did not commit a crime but confess to it anyway. I’m sure it happens but it just seems dubious. If anyone has any data on false confessions I’d like to hear it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous

    On a side note, I’m really unclear on the whole concept of false confessions. I can’t imagine a scenario where I know that I 100% did not commit a crime but confess to it anyway. I’m sure it happens but it just seems dubious. If anyone has any data on false confessions I’d like to hear it.
     
    It seems hard to believe but actually there's been tons of it. Just start Googling around and you'll see what I mean.
    , @Lurker
    The police interviews were conducted/transcribed in Italian, AK doesn't speak or read much Italian. I'm sure I can't think of any issues that might arise from that. Though I presume she had interpreters.
    , @whorefinder

    On a side note, I’m really unclear on the whole concept of false confessions. I can’t imagine a scenario where I know that I 100% did not commit a crime but confess to it anyway. I’m sure it happens but it just seems dubious. If anyone has any data on false confessions I’d like to hear it.
     
    The problem is two fold. First, "Confession is the Queen of evidence." Once people hear X confessing, the overwhelmingly believe X did it. Cops, therefore, work very hard to obtain confessions, since it's a guaranteed conviction, even if recanted.

    Second, people are weak. Interrogation techniques, even when legal, can confuse people into saying things they don't mean, or can be interpreted wrong. People naturally want to make people they like happy, so if a "good cop" gets a suspect to trust him, the suspect may confess just to please him, or else to get a lighter sentence if they think they are dead to rights. And let's not get into sleep deprivation and keeping someone in custody without telling them they can leave--people naturally follow authority, and don't realize in a police station they have to ask if they can leave or be silent, and cops won't otherwise tell them after a Miranda is issued. The idea of custodial interrogation law helps, but to by much. And false memories or drug use can cloud a suspect's mind of what he did and didn't do.

    And make no mistake---intelligence doesn't matter in resisting the techniques, because the techniques don't work on your intelligence, but your will and emotion. Smart people confess all the time to cops thanks to these techniques.
    , @Chris Mallory
    "On a side note, I’m really unclear on the whole concept of false confessions. I can’t imagine a scenario where I know that I 100% did not commit a crime but confess to it anyway. I’m sure it happens but it just seems dubious. If anyone has any data on false confessions I’d like to hear it."

    Ok, you are a not too bright young person, a couple cops pick you up and take you down to the station just to "talk". You know you are innocent, so you don't lawyer up. It starts out friendly, they offer you a coke and a cigarette. Then, it turns ugly. They start with the threats. They keep you in the little room for hours upon hours. The temperature set to make you uncomfortable. You are not allowed to sleep. You are told over and over again that they KNOW you did it. They have evidence that proves you did it. You are tired, dehydrated and hungry. Your blood sugar has bottomed out. You are lucky if you don't urinate on yourself. You are being questioned and lead by men trained in how to play mind games. Finally after 24-48 hours of this, you begin to question if maybe you did do it. Come on now, just sign this paper and you can go home.

    You weren't officially under arrest yet, so your staying there was all "voluntary". Of course, they never tell you that.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. Lot says:

    In the United States, black males commit murder at about 60 times the rate of white females.

    Now if you consider that Guede was abandoned by his parents, had a long criminal record, including drug sales and many burglaries, and that Knox was a middle class college student, that 60:1 ratio becomes more like 6,000:1.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack D
    It's not clear to me how Italian courts work but the 1st time she was convicted, it was based on the theory that it was some kind of kinky sex game gone wrong, for which there was zero evidence. Then that conviction was overturned and the second time she was convicted based on a totally different theory that there was some sort of dispute over money and that Knox had personally wielded the knife that killed Kercher, for which there was also zero evidence. As far as I can tell, the way it works in Italy is that the prosecution and police borrow some vaguely plausible story from a soap opera plot or invent it out of thin air and paste it onto the situation at hand without regard to evidence. The case (or you could call it a script) then appears to be judged by the trial court more on its literary quality than any evidence. The fact that the prosecution concocted not one but two totally contradictory scripts and secured initial convictions on both versions is remarkable. However, it appears as if the appeals courts are of a higher quality and somewhat make up for the Keystone Kops lower courts eventually.

    It's never a good idea to say that person X could never have done Y because it's so out of character for him/her. There are numerous instances in history where people do stuff that is "out of character" (or we really didn't know their true character, just a carefully constructed version of it that they presented to the public). However, in this case, there was nothing in AK's background which indicated that she was the kind of person who would stab her roommate to death over some minor financial quarrel - she was your usual NW vegan SWPL type that wouldn't have stabbed a steak let alone a fellow human being. Nevertheless, if she had done this out of character thing, there would have been some physical or DNA evidence to connect her to it, but there was none. Confessions are widely understood to be virtually useless. There are numerous documented instances where people have confessed to crimes that they could not possibly have committed when pressured enough.

    , @Tony
    Yeah but I have never seen more evil eyes on a white woman than Amanda Knox.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. foxy says:

    yes she did falsely implicate the black guy.it is also interesting to note white nationalalists and feminists both defend her.

    Read More
    • Replies: @No name
    Her falsely implicating a different black guy suggests to me that she knew Guede, who is black, committed the murder, but maybe I'm being a little simplistic there. I don't think there's any doubt that Guede did it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. donut says:
    @Anon
    Youths

    https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10153270729480719

    Where have you gone Bernhard Goetz a nation turns it’s lonely eyes to you .

    Prior to the criminal trial, the media reported that Cabey had been shot on the fourth shot and then again on the fifth shot, with Goetz saying, “You don’t look too bad, here’s another,” or, “You seem all right, here’s another.”[24] This sequence of shots was discredited at the criminal trial when it was revealed that Cabey was shot once in the left side; however, some media still reported[25] this sequence long after the criminal trial.

    ” however, some media still reported[25] this sequence long after the criminal trial.”

    Guess which media .

    Read More
    • Replies: @SFG
    He had a funny afterlife, advocating for vegetarianism and squirrels.

    Back in the eighties lots of New Yorkers, myself included, thought he was a hero.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. No name says:
    @foxy
    yes she did falsely implicate the black guy.it is also interesting to note white nationalalists and feminists both defend her.

    Her falsely implicating a different black guy suggests to me that she knew Guede, who is black, committed the murder, but maybe I’m being a little simplistic there. I don’t think there’s any doubt that Guede did it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack D
    She had met Guede before briefly but she didn't connect him to the murder. She implicated her boss because she was under pressure from the police and totally confused. It may seem strange that people would implicate themselves and others in crimes that they did not commit, but people make false confessions all the time. She was not some hardened criminal used to standing up to cross-examination - she was a college girl with the usual shit-for-brains that liberal American girls are issued nowadays. They could have gotten her down for killing Kennedy too after a few hours of questioning.
    , @Art Deco
    Her falsely implicating a different black guy suggests to me that she knew Guede, who is black, committed the murder, but maybe I’m being a little simplistic there.

    No, you're using your imagination. The 'black guy' in question was her supervisor at work and she'd been asked to imagine scenarios. There is no indication (but Guede's cock-and-bull) that she knew Guede.


    I think she had something to do with it, though I don’t think she killed her or helped to kill her. Maybe she walked in on it as it was happening.

    That she and Raffaele Sollecito would participate in a cover-up to benefit someone they did not know is a rather curious speculation.

    , @Kevin O'Keeffe
    "Her falsely implicating a different black guy suggests to me that she knew Guede, who is black, committed the murder, but maybe I’m being a little simplistic there. I don’t think there’s any doubt that Guede did it."

    Yes, Guede did it. And as you make fairly clear in your remarks, she was his accomplice. And an accomplice-to-murder, is generally regarded as a murderer too, both legally and morally.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. donut says:
    @Dave Pinsen
    For the benefit of any iSteve readers who, for some reason, still haven't read Bonfire of the Vanities, you should post a couple more excerpts to entice them. Two ideas: the scene where the assistant D.A.s get their big office perk, the free sandwiches, and the scene where they mayor's aide readies him for that day's "plaques for blacks" session.

    His description of Peter Fallow waking up with a hangover was awe inspiring , it almost gave me one , sort of a sympathetic hangover .

    When ever I used to see the utterly vile Peirs Morgan I would think of Peter Fallow . Now that Morgan has been deported back to Pakistan or where ever , we have John Oliver , another refugee from the wreckage of Europe to point out our failings . Smug wanker .

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    The Peter Fallow stuff is good too, particularly his internal monologue about his contempt for Americans. But I've laughed out loud every time I've read Wolfe's description of the Italian assistant DA eating his lunch.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. Justin says:

    Who did it, the somewhat air-headed white schoolgirl, or the psychotic black drifter with a long criminal rap sheet? I guess for people raised on crime fiction, Rudy Guede seems like the red herring character/fall guy set up by the caucasian criminal mastermind, Amanda Knox.

    You really do have to be pretty amazingly stupid or out of touch with reality to believe Amanda Knox did it. It is bizarre how so many Europeans seem intent on believing Amanda killed Meredith, I chalk it up to the hysterical anti-American (anti-white American, at least) sentiment so many Europeans have.

    I’m disappointed that Ann Coulter blames Knox, although she also apparently believes evolution is a liberal hoax, so you know… she may be a talented polemicist but she’s not exactly the most rigorously logical thinker.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stan D Mute

    I’m disappointed that Ann Coulter blames Knox, although she also apparently believes evolution is a liberal hoax, so you know… she may be a talented polemicist but she’s not exactly the most rigorously logical thinker.
     
    Re: Coulter's religiosity - she sells books for a living to conservatives. I'd take her religiosity with a bit of salt.

    Re: Coulter's opinion on Knox, she's stuck on the false accusation against negro Lumama. And I agree that's the biggest strike against Knox. But I can imagine how it went down ... Italian cops look at scene and know its a negro's handiwork due to rape and brutality. Interrogating Knox, "Do you know any negroes?" Knox, "Just my boss Lumama." "Did you see Lumama that night? Did he come here? You sent him a text saying "see you later" - was he there? We know he was there!" Knox, "I don't know, I don't know, I'm so scared and confused! Maybe.." "Maybe! You know he was there, you wrote "see you later" - when did you let him in? Did you hear them? Why are you lying!?!" Etc.

    Cops at that point didn't have Guede. They knew a negro did it. They had to make a case quick against somebody so they beat the stupid liberal white girl down mentally until she placed a negro at the scene. After they had Guede, they already put Knox in the crime and had to keep her there to save face.

    Seems more plausible than some liberal idiot brutally knifing another liberal idiot female. What we do know is negro Guede did it (with or without Knox). I don't see "beyond a reasonable doubt" for Knox so she walks anyway.
    , @Forbes
    Coulter is a polemist and a provocateur, and if the lapdog media go off in one direction to build a narrative, you can count of AC to go the other. That the lapdog media regularly spins liberal-left yarns, makes her rightist barbs perfect foil. It makes her entertaining, contrarian, and off-putting, all at the same time.
    , @HA
    "I’m disappointed that Ann Coulter blames Knox,..."

    Coulter's article repeated the claim that Knox and her boyfriend had bought a bottle of bleach after the murders, presumably to clean up things. When I read that, I, too, assumed Knox was guilty, and I don't blame Coulter for thinking the same.

    However, the bleach purchase never happened. Yes, Coulter should revise her accusations in light of that debunking, but between Knox's PR wing and Italian rumor mills, there's a lot of misinformation floating around, some of it due to Knox and Sollecito themselves, so that anyone who pretends that this "discredits just about everything [Coulter] ever said" needs to back off the caffeine or something.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @No name
    I think she had something to do with it, though I don't think she killed her or helped to kill her. Maybe she walked in on it as it was happening. She did confess and try to frame another black guy, for which she was convicted, and it's not like the Italian court system is the Afghan court system. The American media was completely on her side as well, constantly presenting her as a victim. I think you'd be hard pressed to find any news story that suggested she was guilty, much less one that presented it with a racial angle like Zimmerman.

    On a side note, I'm really unclear on the whole concept of false confessions. I can't imagine a scenario where I know that I 100% did not commit a crime but confess to it anyway. I'm sure it happens but it just seems dubious. If anyone has any data on false confessions I'd like to hear it.

    On a side note, I’m really unclear on the whole concept of false confessions. I can’t imagine a scenario where I know that I 100% did not commit a crime but confess to it anyway. I’m sure it happens but it just seems dubious. If anyone has any data on false confessions I’d like to hear it.

    It seems hard to believe but actually there’s been tons of it. Just start Googling around and you’ll see what I mean.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. Jack D says:
    @Lot
    In the United States, black males commit murder at about 60 times the rate of white females.

    Now if you consider that Guede was abandoned by his parents, had a long criminal record, including drug sales and many burglaries, and that Knox was a middle class college student, that 60:1 ratio becomes more like 6,000:1.

    It’s not clear to me how Italian courts work but the 1st time she was convicted, it was based on the theory that it was some kind of kinky sex game gone wrong, for which there was zero evidence. Then that conviction was overturned and the second time she was convicted based on a totally different theory that there was some sort of dispute over money and that Knox had personally wielded the knife that killed Kercher, for which there was also zero evidence. As far as I can tell, the way it works in Italy is that the prosecution and police borrow some vaguely plausible story from a soap opera plot or invent it out of thin air and paste it onto the situation at hand without regard to evidence. The case (or you could call it a script) then appears to be judged by the trial court more on its literary quality than any evidence. The fact that the prosecution concocted not one but two totally contradictory scripts and secured initial convictions on both versions is remarkable. However, it appears as if the appeals courts are of a higher quality and somewhat make up for the Keystone Kops lower courts eventually.

    It’s never a good idea to say that person X could never have done Y because it’s so out of character for him/her. There are numerous instances in history where people do stuff that is “out of character” (or we really didn’t know their true character, just a carefully constructed version of it that they presented to the public). However, in this case, there was nothing in AK’s background which indicated that she was the kind of person who would stab her roommate to death over some minor financial quarrel – she was your usual NW vegan SWPL type that wouldn’t have stabbed a steak let alone a fellow human being. Nevertheless, if she had done this out of character thing, there would have been some physical or DNA evidence to connect her to it, but there was none. Confessions are widely understood to be virtually useless. There are numerous documented instances where people have confessed to crimes that they could not possibly have committed when pressured enough.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. BubbaJoe says:
    @Danindc
    Even my girl Ann Coulter bought the Knox was the murderer angle. Ehhh whadaya gonna do.

    I saw that too. Setting aside her warmongering neocon degeneracy, AC is pretty sharp. She presents a variety of arguments against Knox…

    http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2011-09-07.html

    http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2013-04-03.html

    It seems one red flag for AC was the US media’s assumption of innocence. (I recall the British press being far more suspicious of Knox, and like acting, they do it better than we do). Maybe she’s just trying to bolster her “Republicans are the real defenders of black American interests” shtick. Maybe, just as in Bonfire of the Vanities or the Levy/Condit thing, Knox was up to something else untoward that night. I’m no expert on the case, but I do get a “Gone Girl” vibe from Knox. Still, on balance, I don’t think she did it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Lurker

    the British press being far more suspicious of Knox, and like acting, they do it better than we do
     
    As far as most Brits are concerned they assume she is guilty. Because as we all 'know' the justice system is rigged to protect white, middle class people like AK.

    Half jewish/asians - like the victim - can never get a fair shake under the evil racist system.

    Most Brits are entirely unaware of the guy who was convicted or just how unlikely it is that AK is the killer and that he is innocent. Because Law & Order etc etc
    , @Reg Cæsar

    I recall the British press being far more suspicious of Knox, and like acting, they do it better than we do.
     
    Knox is a Scottish surname. Scotland's murder rate is significantly higher than England's. (And England's is no doubt inflated more by vibrancy, as American whites' "hate crime" rate is augmented by Mexicancy.)

    John Knox invented Presbyterianism. On the other hand, Msgr Ronald (Arbuthnot) Knox, despite his name, considered himself English. But he "poped", so the English don't want him.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. Jack D says:
    @No name
    Her falsely implicating a different black guy suggests to me that she knew Guede, who is black, committed the murder, but maybe I'm being a little simplistic there. I don't think there's any doubt that Guede did it.

    She had met Guede before briefly but she didn’t connect him to the murder. She implicated her boss because she was under pressure from the police and totally confused. It may seem strange that people would implicate themselves and others in crimes that they did not commit, but people make false confessions all the time. She was not some hardened criminal used to standing up to cross-examination – she was a college girl with the usual shit-for-brains that liberal American girls are issued nowadays. They could have gotten her down for killing Kennedy too after a few hours of questioning.

    Read More
    • Replies: @HA
    "She implicated her boss because she was under pressure from the police and totally confused.It may seem strange that people would implicate themselves and others in crimes that they did not commit, but people make false confessions all the time."


    True, but there's a marked difference between a false confession and a false accusation. She accused a man whose only crime was being dumb enough to give someone like her a job, and then she let him stay in jail for weeks, long after she was out of the interrogation room. (It was eventually the police that freed him after it became clear he was in no way connected.) That puts a pretty low cap on my sympathy for her, and also on her credibility, though I see no evidence that she was actually guilty of murder, and if the Italian police had not botched the inspection of her boyfriend's hard drive, and destroyed it instead, they both would have had an alibi that their pot-addled brains were not able to establish for the night in question.

    , @Art Deco
    She had met Guede before briefly
    --
    No, just seen him around the neighborhood. Her downstairs neighbors were acquainted with Guede.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. Dave Pinsen says: • Website
    @donut
    His description of Peter Fallow waking up with a hangover was awe inspiring , it almost gave me one , sort of a sympathetic hangover .

    When ever I used to see the utterly vile Peirs Morgan I would think of Peter Fallow . Now that Morgan has been deported back to Pakistan or where ever , we have John Oliver , another refugee from the wreckage of Europe to point out our failings . Smug wanker .

    The Peter Fallow stuff is good too, particularly his internal monologue about his contempt for Americans. But I’ve laughed out loud every time I’ve read Wolfe’s description of the Italian assistant DA eating his lunch.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. BubbaJoe says:

    BTW, strange in this day and age that it’s taken for granted that the Italian judicial system is corrupt and incompetent. Where are the Italian-American orgs to counter this pernicious stereotype? Sounds like the NYT needs some cultural sensitivity training.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian-American_Civil_Rights_League
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    Knox seems to have had no problem in attracting boyfriends, going from one to another. She must have some sort of persuasive charm in person that’s not apparent through the medium of photos. I wonder what persona she had in Italy?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wilkey
    "Knox seems to have had no problem in attracting boyfriends, going from one to another. She must have some sort of persuasive charm in person that’s not apparent through the medium of photos."

    Huh? She's smoking hot. That's part of why her case has gotten so much attention.

    Unfortunately for the "Law & Order" crowd, the case constructed by the Italian police was comically absurd. It was always most likely a burglary and/or attempted rape gone wrong, and that's what 100% of the evidence pointed to.
    , @Art Deco
    She's handsome and has a sanguine personality. She had to submit her sexual history to the prison infirmary at one point and listed seven men over a period of two years and change, among them Raffalele Sollecito and two men in Seattle who had been her steadies. Loose morals, but in manner and degree sadly common these days. Among her men friends was a certain David Johnsrud in Seattle, who gave one amiable interview ("Amanda's an amazing person"; "I kind of like Raffaele"). The young are the way they are.
    , @Andrew
    Knox seems to have had no problem in attracting boyfriends, going from one to another. She must have some sort of persuasive charm in person that’s not apparent through the medium of photos

    Sure, she has a vagina between two legs that she is willing to spread and it is at the bottom of a torso attached to a pretty face.

    Not to hard to find a string of boyfriends in a world full of lonely and horny men. Remember the aphorism that if a single woman decides on any given night she wants to have sex, pretty much all she has to do is walk to the nearest bar and accept an offer.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. Lurker says:
    @No name
    I think she had something to do with it, though I don't think she killed her or helped to kill her. Maybe she walked in on it as it was happening. She did confess and try to frame another black guy, for which she was convicted, and it's not like the Italian court system is the Afghan court system. The American media was completely on her side as well, constantly presenting her as a victim. I think you'd be hard pressed to find any news story that suggested she was guilty, much less one that presented it with a racial angle like Zimmerman.

    On a side note, I'm really unclear on the whole concept of false confessions. I can't imagine a scenario where I know that I 100% did not commit a crime but confess to it anyway. I'm sure it happens but it just seems dubious. If anyone has any data on false confessions I'd like to hear it.

    The police interviews were conducted/transcribed in Italian, AK doesn’t speak or read much Italian. I’m sure I can’t think of any issues that might arise from that. Though I presume she had interpreters.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. @BubbaJoe
    BTW, strange in this day and age that it's taken for granted that the Italian judicial system is corrupt and incompetent. Where are the Italian-American orgs to counter this pernicious stereotype? Sounds like the NYT needs some cultural sensitivity training.
    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous-antimarxist
    Joe Colombo was also using the IACRL as a means of setting up an old fashion protection racket and apparently it was a real money maker. Italian American home and business owners and others who simply lived in largely Italian neighborhoods became members in order to both not "stand out" and in the expectation that they were purchasing at stiff prices extra judicial protection from the very real threat of street crime..

    This was at the time of the John Lindsey mayoralty when NYC was experiencing a POC crime wave.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. Lurker says:
    @BubbaJoe
    I saw that too. Setting aside her warmongering neocon degeneracy, AC is pretty sharp. She presents a variety of arguments against Knox...

    http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2011-09-07.html

    http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2013-04-03.html

    It seems one red flag for AC was the US media's assumption of innocence. (I recall the British press being far more suspicious of Knox, and like acting, they do it better than we do). Maybe she's just trying to bolster her "Republicans are the real defenders of black American interests" shtick. Maybe, just as in Bonfire of the Vanities or the Levy/Condit thing, Knox was up to something else untoward that night. I'm no expert on the case, but I do get a "Gone Girl" vibe from Knox. Still, on balance, I don't think she did it.

    the British press being far more suspicious of Knox, and like acting, they do it better than we do

    As far as most Brits are concerned they assume she is guilty. Because as we all ‘know’ the justice system is rigged to protect white, middle class people like AK.

    Half jewish/asians – like the victim – can never get a fair shake under the evil racist system.

    Most Brits are entirely unaware of the guy who was convicted or just how unlikely it is that AK is the killer and that he is innocent. Because Law & Order etc etc

    Read More
    • Replies: @BubbaJoe
    Fair point.
    , @No name
    Is she half Jewish/Asian? I've been trying to figure out what her ethnicity was. I thought maybe Pakistani but her English sounding name kept throwing me off.
    , @Matra
    British media coverage of this murder was a bit like the Louise Woodward case in Massachusetts back in 1997. Except then they whipped up the mob in favour of the convicted (an English nanny). Creating outrage, especially when the readers are of the same nationality as the "victim", never fails to sell newspapers. Yet where were these tabloids on Rotherham and Rochdale?
    , @Anonymous
    .... Complicated further in the UK by the fact that the victim's father was a tabloid journalist, and that the victim's family was repeatedly fed bogus information by the Italian police which convinced them of AK and RS's complicity in the crime. This disproportionately biased the British press.

    I would also suggest that the victim's family did not behave in an exemplary fashion, seeming disproportionately partial to the anti-Knox side. Rather than saying "we want to know the truth" they persistently used the language of "justice for Meredith" even when the facts changed. I don't like to criticise people who have lost a child in awful circumstances, but they don't seem to have been very fair-minded.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. BubbaJoe says:
    @Lurker

    the British press being far more suspicious of Knox, and like acting, they do it better than we do
     
    As far as most Brits are concerned they assume she is guilty. Because as we all 'know' the justice system is rigged to protect white, middle class people like AK.

    Half jewish/asians - like the victim - can never get a fair shake under the evil racist system.

    Most Brits are entirely unaware of the guy who was convicted or just how unlikely it is that AK is the killer and that he is innocent. Because Law & Order etc etc

    Fair point.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. No name says:

    Yeah, sorry but I’m never going to confess to a MURDER I didn’t commit. Ever. And I don’t think she was beaten during her “interrogation”. Notice how it’s an interrogation and not a questioning.

    When I read her story about being “interrogated” I got the exact same impression that I got reading the Rolling Stone UVA rape article: total bs. In the Wikipedia article on Kercher’s murder Knox says that a policewoman “was saying ‘Come on, come on, remember’ and then – slap – she hit me. Then ‘come on, come on’ and – slap – another one.” When I read this I thought “I’m supposed to be picturing movies like Midnight Express or Brokedown Palace when I’m reading this but this is Italy, not Turkey or Thailand”. It’s the same kind of line as when Jackie says the frat guy said “Grab its leg” in her story. It’s made up movie bs.

    I’m not here trolling btw. I’m a long time reader of this blog but I just disagree on this subject.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art Deco
    Yeah, sorry but I’m never going to confess to a MURDER I didn’t commit.
    --
    Well, welcome to the world of police work. A non-zero share of confessions are cock-and-bull. Her's was almost immediately retracted and the component implicating her supervisor was derived from a sequence in the conversation when she'd been asked to imagine something.
    --
    An attorney I correspond with who has a criminal defense practice among his other lines has this to say: Don't talk to cops without an attorney present. Ever. Shut up shuttin' up. There is no way your interests can be served by doing that, whether you are guilty or innocent.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. No name says:
    @Lurker

    the British press being far more suspicious of Knox, and like acting, they do it better than we do
     
    As far as most Brits are concerned they assume she is guilty. Because as we all 'know' the justice system is rigged to protect white, middle class people like AK.

    Half jewish/asians - like the victim - can never get a fair shake under the evil racist system.

    Most Brits are entirely unaware of the guy who was convicted or just how unlikely it is that AK is the killer and that he is innocent. Because Law & Order etc etc

    Is she half Jewish/Asian? I’ve been trying to figure out what her ethnicity was. I thought maybe Pakistani but her English sounding name kept throwing me off.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. OhComeOn says:

    Knox is catnip for men…

    She’s a victim AND she’s sexually open

    Two of my gf’s from college followed the victim/sexually open strategy and landed fantastic men. “Oh my ex hit me!”–men love that shit…I mean in both cases it was a complete fabrication…but men LOVE that shit.

    Knox at least is a genuine victim, so she’s actually 1 up over my friends

    Read More
    • Replies: @SFG
    True.

    Tip I've heard from guys at Chateau Heartiste I'd like to pass on: avoid any woman who's accused a guy of rape.

    Even if she actually was raped, she may do the same to you...she's a lot more likely to interpret other things as rape because of the PTSD aftereffects, etc.

    , @Perspective
    Be careful though, some women over play the victim role. My aunt, sadly, has played the damsel in distress role numerous times. Men fall for her charm, and then end up being verbally and mentally abused by her. She then ends the relationship and tells her new boyfriend that she is a 'battered woman'.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. Twinkie says:

    Sorry, for the off-topic intrusion, but no comment on “The Wolf” (aka “Roger,” aka Chris), the chief of CIA’s CTC being fired?

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/architect-of-cias-drone-campaign-to-leave-post-in-watershed-moment-for-agency/2015/03/25/261289ec-d2f7-11e4-ab77-9646eea6a4c7_story.html

    John Brennan is occasionally accused of being a Muslim, but “The Wolf” actually is.

    Apparently they wanted to humiliate him since he was offered to stay on as a subordinate to the new chief of the CTC.

    Wonder what he’ll do now, eh?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  37. Wilkey says:
    @Lagertha
    I agree with an earlier poster...AK may not be who she presents herself in the USA....And, obviously, she has not come clean about her time in Italy, so why, WTF why, would she risk that, and her next professional life, for the rest of her life, to be defined by what happened in Italy when her roommate died? Dead people have a terrible habit of following you to your grave ( theater, opera, WTFE) A dead body; some one is gonna go down.

    What’s to come clean about? The fact that she was a horny, pot-smoking, liberal American College student from the Pacific Northwest who was mildly indifferent to the death of a roommate she didn’t like? That’s a very big club. There are people who don’t much give a shit when other people die. There are people who laugh about it. The girl who told me Michael Jackson died was smirking as she said it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art Deco
    was mildly indifferent to the death of a roommate she didn’t like?
    --
    She wasn't, and she can be seen in photographs with Sollecito looking striken. Some Italian officials and various Brits thought her time-killing diversions at the police station odd, and some of her conversation odd. She'd had conflicts with Kercher, but she was the recipient of dislike, not the source of it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. Wilkey says:
    @anonymous
    Knox seems to have had no problem in attracting boyfriends, going from one to another. She must have some sort of persuasive charm in person that's not apparent through the medium of photos. I wonder what persona she had in Italy?

    “Knox seems to have had no problem in attracting boyfriends, going from one to another. She must have some sort of persuasive charm in person that’s not apparent through the medium of photos.”

    Huh? She’s smoking hot. That’s part of why her case has gotten so much attention.

    Unfortunately for the “Law & Order” crowd, the case constructed by the Italian police was comically absurd. It was always most likely a burglary and/or attempted rape gone wrong, and that’s what 100% of the evidence pointed to.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Pat Gilligan

    “Knox seems to have had no problem in attracting boyfriends, going from one to another. She must have some sort of persuasive charm in person that’s not apparent through the medium of photos.”

    Huh? She’s smoking hot. That’s part of why her case has gotten so much attention.
     
    Careful, Knox has the ability to look like a women's studies graduate from Smith.
    , @anonymous

    Huh? She’s smoking hot
     
    What have you been smoking?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. Daniel H says:

    Alan Dershowitz is so disappointed.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stan D Mute

    Alan Dershowitz is so disappointed.
     
    Dershowitz said he couldn't see proof "beyond a reasonable doubt":

    http://www.newsmax.com/Newsmax-Tv/alan-dershowitz-amanda-knox-murder-trial/2014/01/31/id/550244/
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. The Tv show Person of Interest is a superhero show in which the main characters are some sort of cyberpunk vigilantes that prevent interesting crimes from happening. The black policewoman Carter is upset with them at a point and decide to focus on her job as a homicide detective for a while rather than on the usual evil CEO’s and governmental conspiracies. Unfortunately the crime she has to deal is a 17 years old black guy that has gunned down another black guy for a girl and doesn’t even deny doing it. You can read the disappointment in her face.
    I thought it was really brave of PoI to show the real face of crime for a brief moment.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Paul Mendez
    Person of Interest is the only network television show I go out of my way to watch.

    (Except maybe for Scorpion -- when I feel the urge to laugh at lame plots, lame characters, lame acting and lame science for an hour. )
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. whorefinder says: • Website
    @No name
    I think she had something to do with it, though I don't think she killed her or helped to kill her. Maybe she walked in on it as it was happening. She did confess and try to frame another black guy, for which she was convicted, and it's not like the Italian court system is the Afghan court system. The American media was completely on her side as well, constantly presenting her as a victim. I think you'd be hard pressed to find any news story that suggested she was guilty, much less one that presented it with a racial angle like Zimmerman.

    On a side note, I'm really unclear on the whole concept of false confessions. I can't imagine a scenario where I know that I 100% did not commit a crime but confess to it anyway. I'm sure it happens but it just seems dubious. If anyone has any data on false confessions I'd like to hear it.

    On a side note, I’m really unclear on the whole concept of false confessions. I can’t imagine a scenario where I know that I 100% did not commit a crime but confess to it anyway. I’m sure it happens but it just seems dubious. If anyone has any data on false confessions I’d like to hear it.

    The problem is two fold. First, “Confession is the Queen of evidence.” Once people hear X confessing, the overwhelmingly believe X did it. Cops, therefore, work very hard to obtain confessions, since it’s a guaranteed conviction, even if recanted.

    Second, people are weak. Interrogation techniques, even when legal, can confuse people into saying things they don’t mean, or can be interpreted wrong. People naturally want to make people they like happy, so if a “good cop” gets a suspect to trust him, the suspect may confess just to please him, or else to get a lighter sentence if they think they are dead to rights. And let’s not get into sleep deprivation and keeping someone in custody without telling them they can leave–people naturally follow authority, and don’t realize in a police station they have to ask if they can leave or be silent, and cops won’t otherwise tell them after a Miranda is issued. The idea of custodial interrogation law helps, but to by much. And false memories or drug use can cloud a suspect’s mind of what he did and didn’t do.

    And make no mistake—intelligence doesn’t matter in resisting the techniques, because the techniques don’t work on your intelligence, but your will and emotion. Smart people confess all the time to cops thanks to these techniques.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Pay attention to these points.
    , @Sunbeam
    "And make no mistake—intelligence doesn’t matter in resisting the techniques, because the techniques don’t work on your intelligence, but your will and emotion. Smart people confess all the time to cops thanks to these techniques."

    You know what would be interesting?

    As nearly as I can tell the President can do absolutely anything just about, without any ramifications whatsoever. Well assuming the media is aboard or the powers that be take an interest and gin up some flying monkeys (which is actually what matters).

    So you send a special ops team to snatch some tough guy cops and prosecutors.

    Then you play games with them. Get them to confess to absurd things (I figure if you pressurize them enough the absurdity of the situation won't matter).

    Then do a perp walk theater thing on national TV, see this is what these guys to confess to. Of course they won't be prosecuted for taking part in the Kennedy assassination, or being part of a vast satanic conspiracy, or being gay Nazis for ISIS, there will be the kind of lame ass excuse floated like after Richard Jewel was let off the hook.

    And not a mark on 'em. The cynic in me says it wouldn't take more than a day or two to get these guys to get with the program. Even though if they had a brain in their head they should know something awfully fishy is going on.

    Of course I may misunderstand the current situation. But to my way of thinking if the Koch brothers or someone similar, of whatever party they are aligned with doesn't get a righteous fury on, of course I'd get away with it.
    , @jimbo
    Always worth posting this, for those who haven't seen it:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc
    , @Reg Cæsar

    … and cops won’t otherwise tell them after a Miranda is issued.
     
    And that's in the US. Does Italy have an equivalent to Miranda?

    They used to argue that the exclusionary rule (for improperly obtained evidence) was what prevented us from becoming a dictatorship. Then someone pointed out that the only other country that used the rule was the Philippines, which was under Marcos's thumb at the time.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. @whorefinder

    On a side note, I’m really unclear on the whole concept of false confessions. I can’t imagine a scenario where I know that I 100% did not commit a crime but confess to it anyway. I’m sure it happens but it just seems dubious. If anyone has any data on false confessions I’d like to hear it.
     
    The problem is two fold. First, "Confession is the Queen of evidence." Once people hear X confessing, the overwhelmingly believe X did it. Cops, therefore, work very hard to obtain confessions, since it's a guaranteed conviction, even if recanted.

    Second, people are weak. Interrogation techniques, even when legal, can confuse people into saying things they don't mean, or can be interpreted wrong. People naturally want to make people they like happy, so if a "good cop" gets a suspect to trust him, the suspect may confess just to please him, or else to get a lighter sentence if they think they are dead to rights. And let's not get into sleep deprivation and keeping someone in custody without telling them they can leave--people naturally follow authority, and don't realize in a police station they have to ask if they can leave or be silent, and cops won't otherwise tell them after a Miranda is issued. The idea of custodial interrogation law helps, but to by much. And false memories or drug use can cloud a suspect's mind of what he did and didn't do.

    And make no mistake---intelligence doesn't matter in resisting the techniques, because the techniques don't work on your intelligence, but your will and emotion. Smart people confess all the time to cops thanks to these techniques.

    Pay attention to these points.

    Read More
    • Replies: @NOTA
    This is the reason for the advice that you should never talk to the police in any matter where you could conceivably be the suspect without your lawyer present.
    , @D. K.
    You have a new Great White Defendant in L.A., Steve-- and he is worth tens of millions of dollars! Personally, I do not believe that his bathroom utterances to himself were a confession to three murders, let alone that they should be admitted into evidence, under an exception to the Hearsay Rule, at all. It will eventually be a very interesting trial-- beginning with the pre-trial motions!

    I think that it is typically low of the D.A., however, to charge the special circumstance of "lying in wait," since it is obvious that the victim let her killer into her house herself, and that the killer merely waited until she had turned her back on him to shoot her, execution style, in the back of her head. I fail to see how that courtesy to a very old-and-dear friend would constitute his "lying in wait," as a matter of criminal law.

    I also think that the other claimed special circumstance, that of murdering a witness, is a dubious one, since there was no formal case against the defendant, in New York, when the prospective witness was murdered, in California. There is no proof, only rife speculation, that she actually was a witness-- before, during or after the fact-- in the unsolved case of the 1982 disappearance of the defendant's first wife, regardless.

    That the D.A. is going to waste millions of extra dollars of taxpayer money to try the case as a death-penalty case, against a crazy (albeit seemingly sane) defendant who is about to turn 72, and who is obviously in poor and deteriorating health, when the chance of his ever living long enough to run out of appeals and make it to the death chamber, even if he is convicted in the first instance, is ridiculously long, is pathetic, if predictable.

    At any rate, I have had the appropriate defense outlined since Chapter 5 of "The Jinx" ended, a few weeks ago-- and it is a better defense than the one that got him off, down in Galveston, in 2003, because he does not have to admit to killing the decedent-- and, of course, he did not dismember the corpse, drop it in the bay, and then go back and retrieve the victim's head, after his remains were washed back ashore, and dispose of it elsewhere!
    , @Stan D Mute
    Also that cops are legally permitted to lie. And they'll make threats. "Look, we have a dozen people who put you in the room with the victim and the murder weapon. And if you make this hard on us we are gonna make it miserable on your family forever plus you'll get the electric chair. Just confess and you'll get 20 and be out in 5 so you can help your mama. You don't want us making things hard on mama for the next 40 years while you rot on death row do ya?"
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. Leftist conservative [AKA "leftist conservative blogger"] says: • Website

    the anti-white/pro-nonwhite culture sprang from the elite colleges decades ago.
    Why? The elite/ivy league colleges were populated by and led by people from the upper class, even from the top 1%. The upper class, the 1%, they buy labor. Most of us sell our labor.

    Those who buy labor want to pay less. If you want to pay less, you want more competition in the labor market. The white working class majority 100 years ago or so sought to keep out competition, competition from immigrants, competition from nonwhites.

    So this was a Labor vs Capital war. Capital wants to expand the pool of labor, and Labor wants to restrict it. So it has always been the upper class (who controlled the culture of the elite colleges) versus whites and primarily white males, who dominated the workforce 100 years ago.

    So because they were dominated by the upper class, the elite colleges adopted this the anti-white/pro-nonwhite culture 100 year ago or so. That all snowballed as this culture spread into the minds of impressionable young scholars at elite colleges. Some of them went on to the supreme court and the Senate. That started the civil rights era, which was essentially just a cultural coup by the upper class.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  44. Sunbeam says:
    @whorefinder

    On a side note, I’m really unclear on the whole concept of false confessions. I can’t imagine a scenario where I know that I 100% did not commit a crime but confess to it anyway. I’m sure it happens but it just seems dubious. If anyone has any data on false confessions I’d like to hear it.
     
    The problem is two fold. First, "Confession is the Queen of evidence." Once people hear X confessing, the overwhelmingly believe X did it. Cops, therefore, work very hard to obtain confessions, since it's a guaranteed conviction, even if recanted.

    Second, people are weak. Interrogation techniques, even when legal, can confuse people into saying things they don't mean, or can be interpreted wrong. People naturally want to make people they like happy, so if a "good cop" gets a suspect to trust him, the suspect may confess just to please him, or else to get a lighter sentence if they think they are dead to rights. And let's not get into sleep deprivation and keeping someone in custody without telling them they can leave--people naturally follow authority, and don't realize in a police station they have to ask if they can leave or be silent, and cops won't otherwise tell them after a Miranda is issued. The idea of custodial interrogation law helps, but to by much. And false memories or drug use can cloud a suspect's mind of what he did and didn't do.

    And make no mistake---intelligence doesn't matter in resisting the techniques, because the techniques don't work on your intelligence, but your will and emotion. Smart people confess all the time to cops thanks to these techniques.

    “And make no mistake—intelligence doesn’t matter in resisting the techniques, because the techniques don’t work on your intelligence, but your will and emotion. Smart people confess all the time to cops thanks to these techniques.”

    You know what would be interesting?

    As nearly as I can tell the President can do absolutely anything just about, without any ramifications whatsoever. Well assuming the media is aboard or the powers that be take an interest and gin up some flying monkeys (which is actually what matters).

    So you send a special ops team to snatch some tough guy cops and prosecutors.

    Then you play games with them. Get them to confess to absurd things (I figure if you pressurize them enough the absurdity of the situation won’t matter).

    Then do a perp walk theater thing on national TV, see this is what these guys to confess to. Of course they won’t be prosecuted for taking part in the Kennedy assassination, or being part of a vast satanic conspiracy, or being gay Nazis for ISIS, there will be the kind of lame ass excuse floated like after Richard Jewel was let off the hook.

    And not a mark on ‘em. The cynic in me says it wouldn’t take more than a day or two to get these guys to get with the program. Even though if they had a brain in their head they should know something awfully fishy is going on.

    Of course I may misunderstand the current situation. But to my way of thinking if the Koch brothers or someone similar, of whatever party they are aligned with doesn’t get a righteous fury on, of course I’d get away with it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  45. SFG says:
    @donut
    Where have you gone Bernhard Goetz a nation turns it's lonely eyes to you .

    Prior to the criminal trial, the media reported that Cabey had been shot on the fourth shot and then again on the fifth shot, with Goetz saying, "You don't look too bad, here's another," or, "You seem all right, here's another."[24] This sequence of shots was discredited at the criminal trial when it was revealed that Cabey was shot once in the left side; however, some media still reported[25] this sequence long after the criminal trial.

    " however, some media still reported[25] this sequence long after the criminal trial."

    Guess which media .

    He had a funny afterlife, advocating for vegetarianism and squirrels.

    Back in the eighties lots of New Yorkers, myself included, thought he was a hero.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. @Steve Sailer
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian-American_Civil_Rights_League

    Joe Colombo was also using the IACRL as a means of setting up an old fashion protection racket and apparently it was a real money maker. Italian American home and business owners and others who simply lived in largely Italian neighborhoods became members in order to both not “stand out” and in the expectation that they were purchasing at stiff prices extra judicial protection from the very real threat of street crime..

    This was at the time of the John Lindsey mayoralty when NYC was experiencing a POC crime wave.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. SFG says:
    @OhComeOn
    Knox is catnip for men...

    She's a victim AND she's sexually open

    Two of my gf's from college followed the victim/sexually open strategy and landed fantastic men. "Oh my ex hit me!"--men love that shit...I mean in both cases it was a complete fabrication...but men LOVE that shit.

    Knox at least is a genuine victim, so she's actually 1 up over my friends

    True.

    Tip I’ve heard from guys at Chateau Heartiste I’d like to pass on: avoid any woman who’s accused a guy of rape.

    Even if she actually was raped, she may do the same to you…she’s a lot more likely to interpret other things as rape because of the PTSD aftereffects, etc.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. kihowi says:

    I wish you would find a way to link to all the other posts you have made on a topic when you post an update two years after the last one. I still have to go through all the broken glass material, starting with the very first one. People sort of forget the plot after a few months, you know.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  49. @Wilkey
    "Knox seems to have had no problem in attracting boyfriends, going from one to another. She must have some sort of persuasive charm in person that’s not apparent through the medium of photos."

    Huh? She's smoking hot. That's part of why her case has gotten so much attention.

    Unfortunately for the "Law & Order" crowd, the case constructed by the Italian police was comically absurd. It was always most likely a burglary and/or attempted rape gone wrong, and that's what 100% of the evidence pointed to.

    “Knox seems to have had no problem in attracting boyfriends, going from one to another. She must have some sort of persuasive charm in person that’s not apparent through the medium of photos.”

    Huh? She’s smoking hot. That’s part of why her case has gotten so much attention.

    Careful, Knox has the ability to look like a women’s studies graduate from Smith.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. Steve needs to also write about the corollary to the Captain Ahab like public prosecutor’s search for the Great White Defendant; the crusading left-wing investigative journalist’s holy grail like quest for the wrongly convicted POC murder.

    Right now the left wing blogosphere and much of the “MSM” is all abuzz about the claimed innocence of convicted murder Adnan Syed in the strangulation death of his girlfriend Hae Min Lee in 1999.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_%28podcast%29#Season_1_.282014.29

    This huge internet sensation is surely pure concocted nonsense once one takes an unbiased look at the facts of the case presented at trial.

    Just see Dan Silverstein’s investigation into NPR’s Sarah Koenig’s journalistic atrocity.

    https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/01/07/prosecutor-serial-case-goes-record/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  51. WhatEvvs [AKA "Bemused"] says:

    Typically of the commenters here, no mention of the real victim of this farce, Raffaele Sollecito, who can now live in his own country as a legally free man. Way to go, Sailerites!

    I read several books on the subject and I was struck by the fact that the majority of the Italian prosecution team was female. The top guy was a crazy man, but all of his seconds were women. I think they hated the pretty American girl and drove this farce with their passion to destroy her.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous

    read several books on the subject and I was struck by the fact that the majority of the Italian prosecution team was female. The top guy was a crazy man, but all of his seconds were women. I think they hated the pretty American girl and drove this farce with their passion to destroy her.
     
    Yes, that is also a strange aspect to all this. The court system is becoming more female in this country from what I've seen insofar as being government employees. In one case I was called to jury duty the judge, two prosecutors and two public defenders were all female. I guess they're getting preferential hiring by the government.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. jimbo says:
    @whorefinder

    On a side note, I’m really unclear on the whole concept of false confessions. I can’t imagine a scenario where I know that I 100% did not commit a crime but confess to it anyway. I’m sure it happens but it just seems dubious. If anyone has any data on false confessions I’d like to hear it.
     
    The problem is two fold. First, "Confession is the Queen of evidence." Once people hear X confessing, the overwhelmingly believe X did it. Cops, therefore, work very hard to obtain confessions, since it's a guaranteed conviction, even if recanted.

    Second, people are weak. Interrogation techniques, even when legal, can confuse people into saying things they don't mean, or can be interpreted wrong. People naturally want to make people they like happy, so if a "good cop" gets a suspect to trust him, the suspect may confess just to please him, or else to get a lighter sentence if they think they are dead to rights. And let's not get into sleep deprivation and keeping someone in custody without telling them they can leave--people naturally follow authority, and don't realize in a police station they have to ask if they can leave or be silent, and cops won't otherwise tell them after a Miranda is issued. The idea of custodial interrogation law helps, but to by much. And false memories or drug use can cloud a suspect's mind of what he did and didn't do.

    And make no mistake---intelligence doesn't matter in resisting the techniques, because the techniques don't work on your intelligence, but your will and emotion. Smart people confess all the time to cops thanks to these techniques.

    Always worth posting this, for those who haven’t seen it:

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. HA says:
    @Jack D
    She had met Guede before briefly but she didn't connect him to the murder. She implicated her boss because she was under pressure from the police and totally confused. It may seem strange that people would implicate themselves and others in crimes that they did not commit, but people make false confessions all the time. She was not some hardened criminal used to standing up to cross-examination - she was a college girl with the usual shit-for-brains that liberal American girls are issued nowadays. They could have gotten her down for killing Kennedy too after a few hours of questioning.

    “She implicated her boss because she was under pressure from the police and totally confused.It may seem strange that people would implicate themselves and others in crimes that they did not commit, but people make false confessions all the time.”

    True, but there’s a marked difference between a false confession and a false accusation. She accused a man whose only crime was being dumb enough to give someone like her a job, and then she let him stay in jail for weeks, long after she was out of the interrogation room. (It was eventually the police that freed him after it became clear he was in no way connected.) That puts a pretty low cap on my sympathy for her, and also on her credibility, though I see no evidence that she was actually guilty of murder, and if the Italian police had not botched the inspection of her boyfriend’s hard drive, and destroyed it instead, they both would have had an alibi that their pot-addled brains were not able to establish for the night in question.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. “good-looking white people like Amanda Knox and Haven Monahan”

    Got to be good looking ’cause he’s so hard to see.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  55. Art Deco says: • Website

    Life would be so much more entertaining if well-to-do, good-looking white people like Amanda Knox and Haven Monahan were going around murdering and raping all the time.

    Amanda Knox is a schoolteacher’s daughter. She was enrolled in a state university back home and worked during the school year. Her last known address was a seedy apartment in the U-District in Seattle, which she was sharing with the boyfriend who took her back. Not that affluent. Her co-defendant Raffaele Sollecito is a doctor’s kid from Bari, so he does qualify as affluent on the Italian scale. The annulment of their convictions has much more practical significance for him than for her.

    That Ann Coulter fancies the case against Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito was the least bit plausible discredits just about everything she’s ever said on her own authority. The two had just met a few weeks earlier and neither one had (by age 21) ever been arrested for even minor public order offenses (though they are known to have smoked weed). The Italian police managed to ruin the evidence to be garnered through computer forensics and the bra clasp which supposedly had a minute amount of Sollecito’s DNA on it had been left uncollected for seven weeks in a room he had entered in the past. (The forensic evidence against Knox was completely discredited). Rudy Guede’s fingerprints and DNA were all over Meredith Kercher’s room; there is no credible evidence that Raffaele Sollecito knew Rudy Guede from a cord of wood; and Knox said she recognized Guede from around the neighborhood, but there is no credible evidence she knew his name or had ever conversed with him. The proscutor’s argument
    was a lurid fantasy in which two newly acquainted people kill a third person in cahoots with someone they’ve never met before and with whom they have little in common.

    I wouldn’t try to force this case into the procrustean bed of American racial neuroses. This case was the issue of an incompetent/crooked police force and a crooked prosecutor, both of which were too unscrupulous and too proud to admit they had bollixed the whole case. You find cases like that in Oklahoma as well (see John Grisham’s The Innocent Man). The case had another familiar feature: Meredith Kercher’s stupid relatives bought what the prosecutor told them hook, line, and sinker, as did the British press.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel H
    >>The prosecutor’s argument was a lurid fantasy in which two newly acquainted people kill a third person in cahoots with someone they’ve never met before and with whom they have little in common.

    Let's not leave aside the fact that Ralph Sollecito was a virgin until he met Amanda Knox the week before. With the prosecutor's theory we are to believe that a young, by all accounts, perfectly normal, Sollecito, newly acquainted with the delights of sexual intercourse with a beautiful young woman, had become so jaded with Miss Knox's charms after a few nights together that he and her, to sharpen their edges, concocted a deadly sex game with knifes, torture, rape and murder. Please.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  56. Art Deco says: • Website
    @anonymous
    Knox seems to have had no problem in attracting boyfriends, going from one to another. She must have some sort of persuasive charm in person that's not apparent through the medium of photos. I wonder what persona she had in Italy?

    She’s handsome and has a sanguine personality. She had to submit her sexual history to the prison infirmary at one point and listed seven men over a period of two years and change, among them Raffalele Sollecito and two men in Seattle who had been her steadies. Loose morals, but in manner and degree sadly common these days. Among her men friends was a certain David Johnsrud in Seattle, who gave one amiable interview (“Amanda’s an amazing person”; “I kind of like Raffaele”). The young are the way they are.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  57. Svigor says:

    On a side note, I’m really unclear on the whole concept of false confessions. I can’t imagine a scenario where I know that I 100% did not commit a crime but confess to it anyway. I’m sure it happens but it just seems dubious. If anyone has any data on false confessions I’d like to hear it.

    Every time I’ve read about it (not often), it was an IQ 75 black guy who was either beaten/tortured into it, or convinced that he was confessing to self-defense and would be allowed to walk away afterward.

    True confessions are pretty weird, too. Ever watched The First 48? Many of these guys seem to confess without really even knowing they’re confessing.

    Knox seems to have had no problem in attracting boyfriends, going from one to another. She must have some sort of persuasive charm in person that’s not apparent through the medium of photos. I wonder what persona she had in Italy?

    So, gay then?

    On the other hand, if you asked Central Casting for a woman to play this young “did she didn’t she” role, they’d send you someone who looks like Amanda Knox.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  58. Art Deco says: • Website
    @Wilkey
    What's to come clean about? The fact that she was a horny, pot-smoking, liberal American College student from the Pacific Northwest who was mildly indifferent to the death of a roommate she didn't like? That's a very big club. There are people who don't much give a shit when other people die. There are people who laugh about it. The girl who told me Michael Jackson died was smirking as she said it.

    was mildly indifferent to the death of a roommate she didn’t like?

    She wasn’t, and she can be seen in photographs with Sollecito looking striken. Some Italian officials and various Brits thought her time-killing diversions at the police station odd, and some of her conversation odd. She’d had conflicts with Kercher, but she was the recipient of dislike, not the source of it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wilkey
    Yeah, that's why I said mildly. The still photos of her made it look like she was pretty damn indifferent, but if you take enough photos you can make someone look like they're reacting almost anyway you want them to.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  59. Amanda Knox deliberately lied, in order to protect the Black street criminal. That makes her an accomplice to murder, and thus equally culpable, both legally and morally, by the standards of Ango-Saxon jurisprudence, and the morality of Christendom.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art Deco
    Amanda Knox deliberately lied, in order to protect the Black street criminal.
    --
    Find a disinterested corroborating witness or documentation which will demonstrate that she knew Guede.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  60. Art Deco says: • Website
    @Jack D
    She had met Guede before briefly but she didn't connect him to the murder. She implicated her boss because she was under pressure from the police and totally confused. It may seem strange that people would implicate themselves and others in crimes that they did not commit, but people make false confessions all the time. She was not some hardened criminal used to standing up to cross-examination - she was a college girl with the usual shit-for-brains that liberal American girls are issued nowadays. They could have gotten her down for killing Kennedy too after a few hours of questioning.

    She had met Guede before briefly

    No, just seen him around the neighborhood. Her downstairs neighbors were acquainted with Guede.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  61. Art Deco says: • Website
    @No name
    Yeah, sorry but I'm never going to confess to a MURDER I didn't commit. Ever. And I don't think she was beaten during her "interrogation". Notice how it's an interrogation and not a questioning.

    When I read her story about being "interrogated" I got the exact same impression that I got reading the Rolling Stone UVA rape article: total bs. In the Wikipedia article on Kercher's murder Knox says that a policewoman "was saying 'Come on, come on, remember' and then – slap – she hit me. Then 'come on, come on' and – slap – another one." When I read this I thought "I'm supposed to be picturing movies like Midnight Express or Brokedown Palace when I'm reading this but this is Italy, not Turkey or Thailand". It's the same kind of line as when Jackie says the frat guy said "Grab its leg" in her story. It's made up movie bs.

    I'm not here trolling btw. I'm a long time reader of this blog but I just disagree on this subject.

    Yeah, sorry but I’m never going to confess to a MURDER I didn’t commit.

    Well, welcome to the world of police work. A non-zero share of confessions are cock-and-bull. Her’s was almost immediately retracted and the component implicating her supervisor was derived from a sequence in the conversation when she’d been asked to imagine something.

    An attorney I correspond with who has a criminal defense practice among his other lines has this to say: Don’t talk to cops without an attorney present. Ever. Shut up shuttin’ up. There is no way your interests can be served by doing that, whether you are guilty or innocent.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  62. Art Deco says: • Website
    @No name
    Her falsely implicating a different black guy suggests to me that she knew Guede, who is black, committed the murder, but maybe I'm being a little simplistic there. I don't think there's any doubt that Guede did it.

    Her falsely implicating a different black guy suggests to me that she knew Guede, who is black, committed the murder, but maybe I’m being a little simplistic there.

    No, you’re using your imagination. The ‘black guy’ in question was her supervisor at work and she’d been asked to imagine scenarios. There is no indication (but Guede’s cock-and-bull) that she knew Guede.

    I think she had something to do with it, though I don’t think she killed her or helped to kill her. Maybe she walked in on it as it was happening.

    That she and Raffaele Sollecito would participate in a cover-up to benefit someone they did not know is a rather curious speculation.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Kevin O'Keeffe
    "There is no indication (but Guede’s cock-and-bull) that she knew Guede."

    Guede visited Knox's residence, on 'X' number of occasions. You can't just say "He was there to see the roommate/victim, so Knox didn't know him." Maybe she did, and maybe she didn't, but the fact he was a vistor in her home, definitely constitutes some degree of evidence that Knox knew him.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  63. Art Deco says: • Website
    @Lagertha
    I agree with an earlier poster...AK may not be who she presents herself in the USA....And, obviously, she has not come clean about her time in Italy, so why, WTF why, would she risk that, and her next professional life, for the rest of her life, to be defined by what happened in Italy when her roommate died? Dead people have a terrible habit of following you to your grave ( theater, opera, WTFE) A dead body; some one is gonna go down.

    AK may not be who she presents herself in the USA….

    Read the interviews with her lapsed boyfriends and view the videos you can find of her online and look at her personal history. She’s a standard-issue co-ed from Seattle. Sollecito is a computer geek.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  64. Sean says:

    When Kercher was murdered, Knox was as usual spending the night as Sollicetto’s apartment. She couldn’t have known she was accusing an innocent man in Lumbana. She certainly did not know she was implicating herself, because she thought she was being questioned as a witness. Legal counsel for someone being questioned as a suspect is a human right for good reason.

    Knox’s employer the African bar owner Lumbana, was introduced to Kercher and had badgered her to come back to his bar every time they me in the street. Lumbana somehow found out about Kercher’s murder very early and phoned Knox up when she was in the police station just hours after Kercher’s death. And the police asked Kercher’s English friends if she had known any black men , because one was seen running away. So the police stressed Knox out and got her to exhaustedly implicate herself and a black guy who was a person of interest. Knox didn’t volunteer it.

    The police suspected Knox because of a faked break in by whoever had done the murder. That assumed Kercher could not have unlocked and opened the door to Guede. In the preceding weeks Guede was repeatedly invited into the basement apartment of the house by the Italian men who lived there including Giacomo, Kercher’s boyfriend. So Kercher knew Guede to be a fairly trusted acquaintance of her boyfriend Giacomo.

    When the murder took place The Italian women roomates Mezzetti and Romanelli were away away and Guede’s proven presence at the murder were taken as pointing to Knox having let Guede in through the apartment entrance door that only she (and Kercher) had an available key to.

    The investigators discounted the possibility of anyone but Knox having faked a break in to mislead police into thinking Kercher had been killed by a burglar, rather than someone known to her. So they reasoned Guede would not have drawn suspicion to himself be faking a break-in but at that time Guede was not seen by police as a burglar and did not have a criminal record for burglary or anything else. The Italians in the basement apartment knew who Guede was and that he had met Kercher .

    My guess is while alone in the house Kercher unlocked and opened the door to Guede, who she knew to be an acquaintance of her boyfriend, and therefore Guede had a motive for faking a break-in. Guede t faked a burglary in what was much later revealed to be his signature style The Italian police top cop on the case was certain the break-in was faked, but opposed arresting Knox, Solecitto and Lumbana even after Knox’s self incriminating statements .

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  65. Sean says:

    It wasn’t just Coulter, Ilana Mercer said she was guilty as well. Policewomen were convinced she was guilty and got her to implicate herself in an interrogation during which Knox said she was slapped. After the original top detective on the investigation (Marco Chiarcchierra) quit because Knox was arrested, the investigation was ran by policewoman Monica Napoleoni.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  66. The most deplorable one [AKA "Fourth doorman of the apocalypse"] says:
    @Dave Pinsen
    For the benefit of any iSteve readers who, for some reason, still haven't read Bonfire of the Vanities, you should post a couple more excerpts to entice them. Two ideas: the scene where the assistant D.A.s get their big office perk, the free sandwiches, and the scene where they mayor's aide readies him for that day's "plaques for blacks" session.

    Two ideas: the scene where the assistant D.A.s get their big office perk, the free sandwiches, and the scene where they mayor’s aide readies him for that day’s “plaques for blacks” session.

    However, I bet he didn’t predict Affirmative Action High Tech Positions for women!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  67. melo says:

    The good news is that people in St. Louis are starting to follow Holder’s advice and having an honest conversation about race.

    http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/28/us/st-louis-metrolink-beating/index.html

    Read More
    • Replies: @Kylie

    The good news is that people in St. Louis are starting to follow Holder’s advice and having an honest conversation about race.

    http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/28/us/st-louis-metrolink-beating/index.html

     

    Meanwhile, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch makes the disingenuous suggestion that the problems of St. Louis could be alleviated by combining the city and county.

    http://www.stltoday.com/news/opinion/columns/the-platform/editorial-erase-arbitrary-boundaries-to-build-a-greater-st-louis/article_5b7a9126-3ec7-58de-a7d2-574ef0db46ca.html

    "Arbitrary boundaries". Right. Cui bono?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  68. Svigor says:

    More oppression of minorities:

    http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/taraji-p-henson-apologizes-glendale-785010

    The cops were supremely lenient with her son, and this bitch throws them under the bus. Until the irrefutable evidence comes out showing how full of shit she is.

    She went on to explain that her son was also racially profiled by Glendale police. “My child has been racially profiled. He was in Glendale, California and did exactly everything the cops told him to do, including letting them illegally search his car,” Henson said. “It was bogus because they didn’t give him the ticket for what he was pulled over for.”

    LOL. I wonder how many no-nonsense legal guides have been written explicitly for typical black Americans. One supposes there are many. At this point, you’d think charities would distribute them to blacks for free. Regardless, simple legal concepts like “a search consented to is a legal one” and “police sometimes let you go even when they don’t have to” (ever heard of a warning, dumbass?) simply do not penetrate into black skulls.

    The apology came hours after a video obtained by the Los Angeles Times showed the encounter between Henson’s son and Glendale police, disproving that police racially profiled him.

    Lefties don’t seem to be clamoring for blanket surveillance coverage/recording of police while they’re on duty, do they? Gee, I wonder if that’s because they know that, as in this situation, the evidence will, more often than not, exonerate the cops and show the “oppressed” to be full of shit?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Big Bill
    And last year there was that black LA actress whose boyfriend was humping her on a downtown LA street like she was a bitch in heat. The police intervened and she cried racism.

    If it weren't for people recording a video from the second floor of an office building she would have gotten away with it.

    Thank goodness for police video cameras
    , @Mike Sylwester
    The policeman did not ticket Marcell Johnson for a traffic violation, because Eric Holder's Justice Department will "dismantle" any police department that tickets African-Americans for traffic violations.

    That is a perk that African-Americans will enjoy all throughout the USA through at least 2016 because they vote 97% for the Democratic Party.

    Taraji Henson showed a lot of class for apologizing so contritely and publicly.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  69. melo says:

    Here’s the original video for above article

    According to St Louis police, the attackers can face misdemeanor assault charges. There’s no way this random incident that randomly happened could be a hate crime, right?

    Read More
    • Replies: @David In TN
    Perps of this type are well aware that short of killing someone, they will receive little jail time.
    , @Dave Pinsen
    I tweeted that video to a white guy expressing outrage/status posturing over the racist fraternity chanters. He responded that he could show me a million examples of white-on-black racism, etc. I noted that was unlikely, and that the reason the racist chant was such a big deal was because white racist incidents against blacks were so rare.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  70. @No name
    Her falsely implicating a different black guy suggests to me that she knew Guede, who is black, committed the murder, but maybe I'm being a little simplistic there. I don't think there's any doubt that Guede did it.

    “Her falsely implicating a different black guy suggests to me that she knew Guede, who is black, committed the murder, but maybe I’m being a little simplistic there. I don’t think there’s any doubt that Guede did it.”

    Yes, Guede did it. And as you make fairly clear in your remarks, she was his accomplice. And an accomplice-to-murder, is generally regarded as a murderer too, both legally and morally.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art Deco
    There is no evidence she was ever his accomplice.
    , @No name
    Exactly. That's all I was trying to say. It's obvious that the dna evidence against her was bogus and I'm not sure why the Italian prosecutors tried to say that she actually committed the crime instead of just being an accomplice. I don't think Sollecito had anything to do with it at all.

    I'm surprised, though I shouldn't be, that everyone here believes that police departments all over the world and engaged in a massive conspiracy to lock up innocent people by getting false confessions from everyone. If that were true, wouldn't that mean most of the blacks in prison in America are innocent, and wouldn't that mean that all the talk on here about black criminality is wrong? And you're using media reports to back up your story, a media that's constantly attacked on this site as being completely untrustworthy. You're arguing with your enemies on this one and using their reporting to do it. Ironic.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  71. @whorefinder

    On a side note, I’m really unclear on the whole concept of false confessions. I can’t imagine a scenario where I know that I 100% did not commit a crime but confess to it anyway. I’m sure it happens but it just seems dubious. If anyone has any data on false confessions I’d like to hear it.
     
    The problem is two fold. First, "Confession is the Queen of evidence." Once people hear X confessing, the overwhelmingly believe X did it. Cops, therefore, work very hard to obtain confessions, since it's a guaranteed conviction, even if recanted.

    Second, people are weak. Interrogation techniques, even when legal, can confuse people into saying things they don't mean, or can be interpreted wrong. People naturally want to make people they like happy, so if a "good cop" gets a suspect to trust him, the suspect may confess just to please him, or else to get a lighter sentence if they think they are dead to rights. And let's not get into sleep deprivation and keeping someone in custody without telling them they can leave--people naturally follow authority, and don't realize in a police station they have to ask if they can leave or be silent, and cops won't otherwise tell them after a Miranda is issued. The idea of custodial interrogation law helps, but to by much. And false memories or drug use can cloud a suspect's mind of what he did and didn't do.

    And make no mistake---intelligence doesn't matter in resisting the techniques, because the techniques don't work on your intelligence, but your will and emotion. Smart people confess all the time to cops thanks to these techniques.

    … and cops won’t otherwise tell them after a Miranda is issued.

    And that’s in the US. Does Italy have an equivalent to Miranda?

    They used to argue that the exclusionary rule (for improperly obtained evidence) was what prevented us from becoming a dictatorship. Then someone pointed out that the only other country that used the rule was the Philippines, which was under Marcos’s thumb at the time.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  72. Drudgereport boycotts Knox acquittal … it was top headline everywhere else … yes drudge ran the verdict pre-announcement earlier in the week … bet he had a choice photo for a guilty verdict and was going to put it up front and center … with a link to an article with no mention of Rudy the Ripper …

    Media assassins !!!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  73. sabril says:

    I’m pretty confident that Knox played a role in the murder. My guess is that she and Sollecito set up Kercher to be raped by Guede and things went downhill from there.

    The reason I believe that Knox played a role is that her story doesn’t add up. Therefore she is most likely hiding something and what could she possibly be hiding besides her having played a role in the murder. This may not be quite enough evidence to convict her, but still.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art Deco
    My guess is that she and Sollecito set up Kercher to be raped by Guede and things went downhill from there.

    There is no indication at either she or Sollecito knew Rudy Guede. Sollecito hadn't met Knox until a few weeks earlier.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  74. @BubbaJoe
    I saw that too. Setting aside her warmongering neocon degeneracy, AC is pretty sharp. She presents a variety of arguments against Knox...

    http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2011-09-07.html

    http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2013-04-03.html

    It seems one red flag for AC was the US media's assumption of innocence. (I recall the British press being far more suspicious of Knox, and like acting, they do it better than we do). Maybe she's just trying to bolster her "Republicans are the real defenders of black American interests" shtick. Maybe, just as in Bonfire of the Vanities or the Levy/Condit thing, Knox was up to something else untoward that night. I'm no expert on the case, but I do get a "Gone Girl" vibe from Knox. Still, on balance, I don't think she did it.

    I recall the British press being far more suspicious of Knox, and like acting, they do it better than we do.

    Knox is a Scottish surname. Scotland’s murder rate is significantly higher than England’s. (And England’s is no doubt inflated more by vibrancy, as American whites’ “hate crime” rate is augmented by Mexicancy.)

    John Knox invented Presbyterianism. On the other hand, Msgr Ronald (Arbuthnot) Knox, despite his name, considered himself English. But he “poped”, so the English don’t want him.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  75. anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Wilkey
    "Knox seems to have had no problem in attracting boyfriends, going from one to another. She must have some sort of persuasive charm in person that’s not apparent through the medium of photos."

    Huh? She's smoking hot. That's part of why her case has gotten so much attention.

    Unfortunately for the "Law & Order" crowd, the case constructed by the Italian police was comically absurd. It was always most likely a burglary and/or attempted rape gone wrong, and that's what 100% of the evidence pointed to.

    Huh? She’s smoking hot

    What have you been smoking?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Some pretty bad shit.

    She may not be aging well - the stress from the last 7 years sure hasn't helped - but I don't think many of the male commenters here would turn down a date.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  76. @Art Deco
    Her falsely implicating a different black guy suggests to me that she knew Guede, who is black, committed the murder, but maybe I’m being a little simplistic there.

    No, you're using your imagination. The 'black guy' in question was her supervisor at work and she'd been asked to imagine scenarios. There is no indication (but Guede's cock-and-bull) that she knew Guede.


    I think she had something to do with it, though I don’t think she killed her or helped to kill her. Maybe she walked in on it as it was happening.

    That she and Raffaele Sollecito would participate in a cover-up to benefit someone they did not know is a rather curious speculation.

    “There is no indication (but Guede’s cock-and-bull) that she knew Guede.”

    Guede visited Knox’s residence, on ‘X’ number of occasions. You can’t just say “He was there to see the roommate/victim, so Knox didn’t know him.” Maybe she did, and maybe she didn’t, but the fact he was a vistor in her home, definitely constitutes some degree of evidence that Knox knew him.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art Deco
    Guede visited Knox’s residence, on ‘X’ number of occasions.

    No, he did not. He was an acquaintance of the youths who lived in the downstairs flat, not the women living in the upstairs flat. You live in an apartment building, how many of your neighbors' casual friends you know? If you're like most people, none.
    , @WhatEvvs
    No. Get some facts before you speak. There is a thing called the Internet.

    The place was a commune, with 4 girls (Knox, Kercher and two Italians) living on one floor, and two Italian guys living in proximity in the basement. Knox met Guede once, tops, by chance.


    In Perugia, Knox shared a four-bedroom ground-floor apartment in a house at Via della Pergola 7, the front door did not have a spring latch and had to be closed with a key. A minute's walk from the house was Piazza Grimana, where students often gathered.[22] Her flatmates were two Italian women in their late twenties, and Kercher. Kercher and Knox moved in on 10 and 20 September 2007, respectively, meeting each other for the first time.[23] Knox was employed part-time at a bar, Le Chic, which was owned by a Congolese man, Diya Patrick Lumumba. She told flatmates that she was going to quit because he was not paying her; Lumumba denied this.[24] Kercher's English women friends saw relatively little of Knox, as she preferred to mix with Italians.[25]
    The walk-out semi-basement of the house was rented by young Italian men with whom both Kercher and Knox were friendly. One, Giacomo, spent time in the girls' flat due to a shared interest in music. Returning home at 2 am one night in mid October, Knox, Kercher, Giacomo and another basement resident met Rudy Guede whom the Italians knew from playing basketball with him at Piazza Grimana.[26] Guede attached himself to the group and asked about Knox. He was invited into the basement and talked about her with the Italians. Knox and then Kercher came down to join them. At 4:30 am Kercher left, saying she was going to bed, and Knox followed her out
     
    Guede's relationship was with the Italian guys. They used to smoke dope. Speculation: Guede likely had a sexual thing for Knox and killed Kercher in a rage when she discovered him in the course of robbing the place.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amanda_Knox#Via_della_Pergola_7

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  77. anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @WhatEvvs
    Typically of the commenters here, no mention of the real victim of this farce, Raffaele Sollecito, who can now live in his own country as a legally free man. Way to go, Sailerites!

    I read several books on the subject and I was struck by the fact that the majority of the Italian prosecution team was female. The top guy was a crazy man, but all of his seconds were women. I think they hated the pretty American girl and drove this farce with their passion to destroy her.

    read several books on the subject and I was struck by the fact that the majority of the Italian prosecution team was female. The top guy was a crazy man, but all of his seconds were women. I think they hated the pretty American girl and drove this farce with their passion to destroy her.

    Yes, that is also a strange aspect to all this. The court system is becoming more female in this country from what I’ve seen insofar as being government employees. In one case I was called to jury duty the judge, two prosecutors and two public defenders were all female. I guess they’re getting preferential hiring by the government.

    Read More
    • Replies: @WhatEvvs

    The court system is becoming more female in this country
     
    You mean Italy? Are you in Italy?

    One book was quite pointed about how the assistant prosecutors were ultra-fashionable, and were very contemptuous of Knox's Seattle casual attire, and lack of makeup. All this with the press's obsession with Foxy Knoxy and sneers about how she was getting a free ride because she was pretty. Quite the opposite. I think those witches were out to get her.

    Peter Popham has a good writeup in The Independent, look it up.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  78. Kylie says:
    @melo
    The good news is that people in St. Louis are starting to follow Holder's advice and having an honest conversation about race.

    http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/28/us/st-louis-metrolink-beating/index.html

    The good news is that people in St. Louis are starting to follow Holder’s advice and having an honest conversation about race.

    http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/28/us/st-louis-metrolink-beating/index.html

    Meanwhile, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch makes the disingenuous suggestion that the problems of St. Louis could be alleviated by combining the city and county.

    http://www.stltoday.com/news/opinion/columns/the-platform/editorial-erase-arbitrary-boundaries-to-build-a-greater-st-louis/article_5b7a9126-3ec7-58de-a7d2-574ef0db46ca.html

    “Arbitrary boundaries”. Right. Cui bono?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  79. NOTA says:
    @Steve Sailer
    Pay attention to these points.

    This is the reason for the advice that you should never talk to the police in any matter where you could conceivably be the suspect without your lawyer present.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alfa158
    A few years back there was a YouTube video by a law professor giving a real life example of why that is correct.
    A very experienced criminal defense attorney had gotten into a spirited argument in a court hallway with a female assistant DA. Shortly afterward the attorney was approached by a police detective who told him that the ADA was going to file a criminal complaint that he had grabbed her by the shoulders during the argument and shaken her, so could the attorney give his side of the story and clear this all up. The attorney knew all the ways that suspects will say dumb things, giving ambiguous answers, talking too much, volunteering extra detail etc., so he figured he could safely talk to the cop alone without incriminating himself.
    He proceeded to give a perfect statement that it was all false, they had talked but there was no physical contact whatsoever, period, end of discussion.
    The defense attorney was indicted. At the trial the ADA repeated her accusations, the attorney testified again that there was no contact. The detective was asked to read from his notes on his conversation with the defendant. The detective testified that the defendant told him that he had grabbed the victim by her shoulders but that he was only kidding around, and never shook her. The attorney was convicted of felony assault.
    The moral of the story being that even if your story is perfect, you have to have a lawyer present if for no other reason to back up what you actually said and keep the police from lying about it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  80. Art Deco says: • Website
    @Kevin O'Keeffe
    "Her falsely implicating a different black guy suggests to me that she knew Guede, who is black, committed the murder, but maybe I’m being a little simplistic there. I don’t think there’s any doubt that Guede did it."

    Yes, Guede did it. And as you make fairly clear in your remarks, she was his accomplice. And an accomplice-to-murder, is generally regarded as a murderer too, both legally and morally.

    There is no evidence she was ever his accomplice.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  81. Simon says:

    Is Italy a PC-whipped society. I don’t get that impression. Quite the opposite.

    As I recall, Knox and her boyfriend weren’t locked up for wielding the knife but for providing the killer with an alibi. I don’t know why they did this. I’m guessing they were confused/disoriented from lack of sleep, or something else. Anyway, this was dumb. If you’re not thinking straight just keep quiet and don’t say anything.

    And this whole situation may be the opposite of what people here are assuming: instead of a PC justice system trying to frame two white kids for a black crime, it may have been clueless Portlandians trying to save their black friend from “unjust” accusations by “racist” police. If that was the case the twits deserved jail time.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art Deco
    As I recall, Knox and her boyfriend weren’t locked up for wielding the knife but for providing the killer with an alibi. I don’t know why they did this

    You don't recall because neither of them knew Rudy Guede.
    , @Art Deco
    it may have been clueless Portlandians trying to save their black friend from “unjust” accusations by “racist” police. If that was the case the twits deserved jail time.

    Amazing the printing plates in people's heads. Neither Sollecito nor Knox can be shown to have been the least bit acquainted with Rudy Guede.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  82. Art Deco says: • Website
    @Kevin O'Keeffe
    Amanda Knox deliberately lied, in order to protect the Black street criminal. That makes her an accomplice to murder, and thus equally culpable, both legally and morally, by the standards of Ango-Saxon jurisprudence, and the morality of Christendom.

    Amanda Knox deliberately lied, in order to protect the Black street criminal.

    Find a disinterested corroborating witness or documentation which will demonstrate that she knew Guede.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  83. No name says:
    @Kevin O'Keeffe
    "Her falsely implicating a different black guy suggests to me that she knew Guede, who is black, committed the murder, but maybe I’m being a little simplistic there. I don’t think there’s any doubt that Guede did it."

    Yes, Guede did it. And as you make fairly clear in your remarks, she was his accomplice. And an accomplice-to-murder, is generally regarded as a murderer too, both legally and morally.

    Exactly. That’s all I was trying to say. It’s obvious that the dna evidence against her was bogus and I’m not sure why the Italian prosecutors tried to say that she actually committed the crime instead of just being an accomplice. I don’t think Sollecito had anything to do with it at all.

    I’m surprised, though I shouldn’t be, that everyone here believes that police departments all over the world and engaged in a massive conspiracy to lock up innocent people by getting false confessions from everyone. If that were true, wouldn’t that mean most of the blacks in prison in America are innocent, and wouldn’t that mean that all the talk on here about black criminality is wrong? And you’re using media reports to back up your story, a media that’s constantly attacked on this site as being completely untrustworthy. You’re arguing with your enemies on this one and using their reporting to do it. Ironic.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art Deco
    that everyone here believes that police departments all over the world and engaged in a massive conspiracy to lock up innocent people by getting false confessions from everyone. I

    No one here even implied they believe that. What people believe is that police and prosecutors engaged in a discrete conspiracy to lock up two young people because they lacked the character to admit they were wrong.
    , @Jack D
    In my experience, the police want to clear their open case files any way that they can. If they can get you to confess to every unsolved case in their book, they would love nothing more. As far as the are concerned, if they trick you into confessing, it's probably because you are guilty anyway. They are not looking for FALSE confessions, they are looking for confessions period and they assume that they are true. If you are dumb enough to confess to something that you didn't actually do, that's your problem now, not theirs.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  84. WhatEvvs [AKA "Bemused"] says:

    : It’s Lumumba, not Lumbana.

    – “No, you’re using your imagination. The ‘black guy’ in question was her supervisor at work and she’d been asked to imagine scenarios. There is no indication (but Guede’s cock-and-bull) that she knew Guede.”

    Right, this shit is something she babbled after four days of being slapped around and denied basic rights. I don’t think she had a drink of water in that time period. We don’t know exactly what she said – only what the deep-yellow press has reported. Anyway, she paid for that. I do not know if the latest decision vacated the conviction, but she paid for that.

    Re Ann Coulter – she’s nuts. 100% worthless.

    Ilana Mercer: another loony. Both have completely discredited themselves with this.

    But she’s on the anti-immigrant team, so let’s forget about it. No, I don’t. When someone writes crap like this, I’m off their team.

    About the race issue, I don’t want to go there but I have to say that when Meredith Kercher’s parentage became known (her mother is a dark-skinned Indian or Sri Lankan), the “Our Fair English Rose” meme/trope became difficult for the British tabloids to sustain. Most of the better reporting on the subject came from the better British papers – The Independent, The Guardian. The insanity was from Steve’s favorite online soure: The Daily Wail. But even they have changed their tune, unwillingly. I note that many of the British commenters have come around to the fact that poor Meredith was murdered in a banal way by Guede.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sean
    Lumumba wasn't paying Knox and had suggested she drink alcohol while she was working. She was going to quit and had a few reasons for thinking him a shady character at the time of the interrogation.

    The only juror in the Central Park Five trial that wanted to acquit was a gay man. Nina Burleigh thought Knox was guilty at first . I thought she was guilty at first too.

    The Knox case just shows how anything can look bad; the prosecution had a sinister explanation for everything Knox did that morning from trying phoning Kercher to trying to break down her door (though now it is obvious that Knox would have surely have switched the phones off and had the keys to the door if she was guilty). It just shows how as it says in this anything you say can be used to crucify you.

    I like Ilana Mercer, but she can make a mistake. By the way Rita Ficarra the detective who got Knox to incriminate herself (the little dark one on the right here) is Sicilian. The cop who fed Mignini false information about a satanist conspiracy in the Monster of florence case was Sicilian too.

    Quite apart from Knox writing on her blog about approaching a 'beautiful' African for a date soon after she arrived in Italy (this is a third black guy not connected to the case) and the fact she had briefly met Guede at the bar and also though the men in the basement while socialising with Kercher there, there actually was quite a bit of forensic evidence against her and Sollecitto at first. By the time of the first trial verdict. The Mail published things suggesting she was innocent, this is way back in 2009 . Amanda Knox: The troubling doubts over Foxy Knoxy's role in Meredith Kercher's murder The Supreme court definitively acquitted her only after the (3rd) trial had made a re-test of the DNA knife (which the 2nd Hellmann court refused to order). The only possible forensic evidence was shown to simply not exist. There was no DNA of Kercher on the knife.

    The confusion is caused by the Italians having a different legal system which is Inquisitorial and operates as an ongoing search for the truth with all information taken into account, not a single verdict with only admissible testimony being heard. Escaping conviction because there is insufficient evidence is very unlikely in Italy. They come to the correct conclusion, eventually.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  85. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  86. WhatEvvs [AKA "Bemused"] says:

    Sollecito’s father is a prosperous doctor but not extraordinarily rich. The legal fees, not to mention the horrible stress, have been enormous.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  87. D. K. says:

    One of my own former professors and M.S. committee members at Purdue, Saul Kassin, is an expert on false confessions. He now splits his time between Williams College, where he went after Purdue, in 1981, and John Jay College, in Manhattan. You may look him up on Wikipedia.org.

    Elizabeth Loftus, who was in the Psychology Department at the University of Washington for nearly thirty years, including while I was a law student and, later, an M.B.A. student there, is an expert in the areas of eyewitness testimony and the creation of false memories. She is now at U.C.-Irvine, and likewise has an entry on Wikipedia.org.

    Anyone who believes that Amanda Knox and her then-boyfriend, Raffaele Sollecito, had anything to do with Rudy Guede’s rape and murder of Meredith Kercher might want to consider contacting one of the two above-noted academic experts– or, simply contacting a mental-health professional directly.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  88. @melo
    Here's the original video for above article

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_JPrDklNukQ

    According to St Louis police, the attackers can face misdemeanor assault charges. There's no way this random incident that randomly happened could be a hate crime, right?

    Perps of this type are well aware that short of killing someone, they will receive little jail time.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  89. Wilkey says:
    @Art Deco
    was mildly indifferent to the death of a roommate she didn’t like?
    --
    She wasn't, and she can be seen in photographs with Sollecito looking striken. Some Italian officials and various Brits thought her time-killing diversions at the police station odd, and some of her conversation odd. She'd had conflicts with Kercher, but she was the recipient of dislike, not the source of it.

    Yeah, that’s why I said mildly. The still photos of her made it look like she was pretty damn indifferent, but if you take enough photos you can make someone look like they’re reacting almost anyway you want them to.

    Read More
    • Replies: @donut
    This should be no surprise to anyone but is still entertaining :

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBwepkVurCI
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  90. D. K. says:
    @Steve Sailer
    Pay attention to these points.

    You have a new Great White Defendant in L.A., Steve– and he is worth tens of millions of dollars! Personally, I do not believe that his bathroom utterances to himself were a confession to three murders, let alone that they should be admitted into evidence, under an exception to the Hearsay Rule, at all. It will eventually be a very interesting trial– beginning with the pre-trial motions!

    I think that it is typically low of the D.A., however, to charge the special circumstance of “lying in wait,” since it is obvious that the victim let her killer into her house herself, and that the killer merely waited until she had turned her back on him to shoot her, execution style, in the back of her head. I fail to see how that courtesy to a very old-and-dear friend would constitute his “lying in wait,” as a matter of criminal law.

    I also think that the other claimed special circumstance, that of murdering a witness, is a dubious one, since there was no formal case against the defendant, in New York, when the prospective witness was murdered, in California. There is no proof, only rife speculation, that she actually was a witness– before, during or after the fact– in the unsolved case of the 1982 disappearance of the defendant’s first wife, regardless.

    That the D.A. is going to waste millions of extra dollars of taxpayer money to try the case as a death-penalty case, against a crazy (albeit seemingly sane) defendant who is about to turn 72, and who is obviously in poor and deteriorating health, when the chance of his ever living long enough to run out of appeals and make it to the death chamber, even if he is convicted in the first instance, is ridiculously long, is pathetic, if predictable.

    At any rate, I have had the appropriate defense outlined since Chapter 5 of “The Jinx” ended, a few weeks ago– and it is a better defense than the one that got him off, down in Galveston, in 2003, because he does not have to admit to killing the decedent– and, of course, he did not dismember the corpse, drop it in the bay, and then go back and retrieve the victim’s head, after his remains were washed back ashore, and dispose of it elsewhere!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Kylie
    Durst is fascinating.

    When I read about his arrest, I had to rewatch "All Good Things", a very thinly disguised account of the disappearance of his wife and the murder and dismemberment of his neighbor. Ryan Gosling, who often plays a sensitive but manly type, was really chilling as "David Marks" (Robert Durst).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  91. @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    There could be a larger point lurking here. Of all the major con-right columnists, only Ann Coulter (a former attorney) has consistently written that she believes that Knox was indeed the guilty one, the killer, and that she simply got away with it.

    I remember the paleo-libertarian and staunch Zionist Ilana Mercer also believed Amanada Knox had something to do with it…. she & Larry Auster got into it, invectives were hurled, etc. Truly entertaining.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  92. @Justin
    Who did it, the somewhat air-headed white schoolgirl, or the psychotic black drifter with a long criminal rap sheet? I guess for people raised on crime fiction, Rudy Guede seems like the red herring character/fall guy set up by the caucasian criminal mastermind, Amanda Knox.

    You really do have to be pretty amazingly stupid or out of touch with reality to believe Amanda Knox did it. It is bizarre how so many Europeans seem intent on believing Amanda killed Meredith, I chalk it up to the hysterical anti-American (anti-white American, at least) sentiment so many Europeans have.

    I'm disappointed that Ann Coulter blames Knox, although she also apparently believes evolution is a liberal hoax, so you know... she may be a talented polemicist but she's not exactly the most rigorously logical thinker.

    I’m disappointed that Ann Coulter blames Knox, although she also apparently believes evolution is a liberal hoax, so you know… she may be a talented polemicist but she’s not exactly the most rigorously logical thinker.

    Re: Coulter’s religiosity – she sells books for a living to conservatives. I’d take her religiosity with a bit of salt.

    Re: Coulter’s opinion on Knox, she’s stuck on the false accusation against negro Lumama. And I agree that’s the biggest strike against Knox. But I can imagine how it went down … Italian cops look at scene and know its a negro’s handiwork due to rape and brutality. Interrogating Knox, “Do you know any negroes?” Knox, “Just my boss Lumama.” “Did you see Lumama that night? Did he come here? You sent him a text saying “see you later” – was he there? We know he was there!” Knox, “I don’t know, I don’t know, I’m so scared and confused! Maybe..” “Maybe! You know he was there, you wrote “see you later” – when did you let him in? Did you hear them? Why are you lying!?!” Etc.

    Cops at that point didn’t have Guede. They knew a negro did it. They had to make a case quick against somebody so they beat the stupid liberal white girl down mentally until she placed a negro at the scene. After they had Guede, they already put Knox in the crime and had to keep her there to save face.

    Seems more plausible than some liberal idiot brutally knifing another liberal idiot female. What we do know is negro Guede did it (with or without Knox). I don’t see “beyond a reasonable doubt” for Knox so she walks anyway.

    Read More
    • Replies: @HA
    "Re: Coulter’s opinion on Knox, she’s stuck on the false accusation against negro Lumama. And I agree that’s the biggest strike against Knox. But I can imagine how it went down … "

    But the Knox interview which got Lumumba jailed was only two hours. According to the police (the interview wasn't taped), as soon as they told her that her boyfriend had withdrawn her alibi, she placed herself at the scene overhearing Lumumba murder her roommate. Later, while she was in jail, she told her mother she had made all that up, but neither she nor the mother bothered to tell anyone and get the guy released. Not exactly citizens of the year.

    After Knox was freed, her boyfriend remained in prison, and though I didn't follow her interviews closely, I kept waiting for a comment along the lines of "you know, my ex is still doing time for this -- I hope my supporters will help redress that injustice as well", but it was always all about her. Maybe she did speak up for him, and the editors didn't bother with it, but again, no sympathy points.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  93. Andrew says:
    @anonymous
    Knox seems to have had no problem in attracting boyfriends, going from one to another. She must have some sort of persuasive charm in person that's not apparent through the medium of photos. I wonder what persona she had in Italy?

    Knox seems to have had no problem in attracting boyfriends, going from one to another. She must have some sort of persuasive charm in person that’s not apparent through the medium of photos

    Sure, she has a vagina between two legs that she is willing to spread and it is at the bottom of a torso attached to a pretty face.

    Not to hard to find a string of boyfriends in a world full of lonely and horny men. Remember the aphorism that if a single woman decides on any given night she wants to have sex, pretty much all she has to do is walk to the nearest bar and accept an offer.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  94. @Daniel H
    Alan Dershowitz is so disappointed.

    Alan Dershowitz is so disappointed.

    Dershowitz said he couldn’t see proof “beyond a reasonable doubt”:

    http://www.newsmax.com/Newsmax-Tv/alan-dershowitz-amanda-knox-murder-trial/2014/01/31/id/550244/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  95. @Steve Sailer
    Pay attention to these points.

    Also that cops are legally permitted to lie. And they’ll make threats. “Look, we have a dozen people who put you in the room with the victim and the murder weapon. And if you make this hard on us we are gonna make it miserable on your family forever plus you’ll get the electric chair. Just confess and you’ll get 20 and be out in 5 so you can help your mama. You don’t want us making things hard on mama for the next 40 years while you rot on death row do ya?”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  96. Wilkey says:

    What’s pathetic about this whole Italian fuck-up isn’t just that they tried to railroad two clearly innocent (white) people, but that the actual, undeniable, incontrovertible (black) murderer got away with an obscenely low 16 year sentence and is already eligible for “day release.” Not only did he commit the murder, but he implicated two perfectly innocent people in the crime.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr Curious
    Not "perfectly innocent" White people; they need to choose their friends more carefully!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  97. The most deplorable one [AKA "Fourth doorman of the apocalypse"] says:

    In Killing Trayvons, CounterPunch says, in the description:

    Killing Trayvons: An Anthology of American Violence tracks the case and explores why Trayvon’s name and George Zimmerman’s not guilty verdict symbolized all the grieving, the injustice, the profiling and free passes based on white privilege and police power: the long list of Trayvons known and unknown.

    I sure wish I had more of that white privilege … and I imagine that George Zimmerman does as well, because maybe then he would not have gotten his head bashed into the ground …

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  98. Bill B. says:

    In this case I disagree: I think Knox is guilty.

    1 We know conclusively there were multiple murderers: Kircher was killed upright; she was tortured with scores of knife cuts but screamed only once; no defensive wounds were found on anybody; she was a strong girl who would have fought if she could have; the attack lasted for some time; Kircher had bruises on her arms and jaw suggestive of being held and muzzled.

    2 When Guede left the murder scene he walked his bloody footprints straight out of the house (footprints in red here).

    So who subsequently faked the break-in? There has been not a scintilla of evidence showing any fourth or fifth person to have been present aside from the three suspects. Knox and her boyfriend had extremely strong reasons to lead the police away from the murder being an inside job since only Knox and the victim were, of all eight house residents, in town on an Italian bank holiday.

    3 Knox had motive. Kircher had told her friends that Knox had almost certainly stolen her rent money; she had also rebuffed Knox’s attempts to joint her activities over the bank holiday.

    4 The subsequent behaviour of Knox and her boyfriend was bizarre in the extreme if they were innocent. (And leaving aside Knox’s extraordinarily callous response to a very brutal murder of the girl who had the room next to her’s.)

    Making emergency calls to the police after returning to the house after two policemen had just arrived to return Kircher’s stolen phones (presumably to maintain an alibi). Knox lying about Kircher always keeping her door locked (presumably to delay discovery of the body). Knox’s intimate knowledge of Kircher’s murder when this had not been disclosed by investigators. Bloody footprints that fitted Knox and her boyfriend (as they presumably attempted to clean up the murder scene).

    Knox and her boyfriends multiple lies (as shown by computer and phone records) as they tried to supply alibis for each other.

    5 Guede is an immoral loser who should never have been permitted to stay in Italy when his father returned to Africa and who abused the trust of a rich, liberal family who tried to help him. But Knox was a thrill-seeker and Sollecito a knife obsessive.

    DO read this well-written site on the case:

    http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Myths_debunked

    P.S. I have no connection with this case.
    P.P.S. Guede got the shockingly inappropriate sentence of 16 years because his original maximum sentences of 30 years was cut to the same level as Knox’s 25 years then automatically reduced by a third because Guede agreed to a fast-track trial. Hence 16 years. Italy does not do plea deals.

    TIP FOR PARENTS: If your daughter is doing a year abroad like this make sure she is staying with people who are also working towards exams or in a proper job. Knox was on casual language study.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ron Unz


    Amanda Knox Acquitted of 2007 Murder by Italy’s Highest Court.
     
    It turns out that the real killer was … the black street criminal.
     
    Well, if legal verdicts are so conclusive, should OJ get his good name back?

    Glancing over the thread, I'd guess I've followed this case about 95% less than most of the conflicting commenters, but I do recall that Knox's behavior and statements during the investigation struck me as very odd, sufficiently odd that I thought there was at least a 50-50 chance she was involved in the murder. Since the Italian courts have now both convicted and acquitted her several separate times, I can't see how more more acquittal makes much of a difference.

    Another factor was that if this court had ruled against her, wouldn't Italy have had to try to get her extradicted back? And since America wouldn't have complied, the Italian government would have looked ridiculous, an embarrassment that the ruling averted.

    To my eye, it looks like the partisans in this thread are lining up about 3-to-1 in Knox's favor. Since they know the details in-and-out while I don't, I'm curious how they despond to the reasonable points made by "Bill B" above, some of which I think I'd also read elsewhere in the past.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  99. rod1963 says:

    Knox made a good villain because she is a bit nutty and creepy looking. Her behavior after the murder with that sleazy Italian dude and during the initial trial made her look very bizarre and cold blooded.

    She basically incriminated herself even though she wasn’t guilty. Her only crime was perhaps of being a total narcissist and upper class party girl with no clue how to comport herself as a human being.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art Deco
    Knox made a good villain because she is a bit nutty and creepy looking.

    You know, some judgements one utters say more about the utterer than the object of judgment.


    Her behavior after the murder with that sleazy Italian dude

    The 'sleazy Italian dude' is a doctor's kid / computer geek.



    and during the initial trial made her look very bizarre and cold blooded.

    Yeah, smiling at your family when you enter the courtroom will do that.



    She basically incriminated herself even though she wasn’t guilty. Her only crime was perhaps of being a total narcissist and upper class party girl with no clue how to comport herself as a human being.

    Because you're well placed to call someone you've never met, a young woman with no shortage of friends who speak well of her and no previous history of pathological behavior a 'total narcissist', most particularly when your understanding of 'upper-class party girl' includes state university students working wage jobs on the side because their parents are ordinary salaried employees with three other children.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  100. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  101. Forbes says:
    @Justin
    Who did it, the somewhat air-headed white schoolgirl, or the psychotic black drifter with a long criminal rap sheet? I guess for people raised on crime fiction, Rudy Guede seems like the red herring character/fall guy set up by the caucasian criminal mastermind, Amanda Knox.

    You really do have to be pretty amazingly stupid or out of touch with reality to believe Amanda Knox did it. It is bizarre how so many Europeans seem intent on believing Amanda killed Meredith, I chalk it up to the hysterical anti-American (anti-white American, at least) sentiment so many Europeans have.

    I'm disappointed that Ann Coulter blames Knox, although she also apparently believes evolution is a liberal hoax, so you know... she may be a talented polemicist but she's not exactly the most rigorously logical thinker.

    Coulter is a polemist and a provocateur, and if the lapdog media go off in one direction to build a narrative, you can count of AC to go the other. That the lapdog media regularly spins liberal-left yarns, makes her rightist barbs perfect foil. It makes her entertaining, contrarian, and off-putting, all at the same time.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  102. TheJester says:

    That an Italian court found Amanda Cox innocent means nothing. In the Italian justice system, the courts act and then the thing goes into an endless appeals process. It goes back and forth until, at the end of the day, a person is found guilty or innocent based on their political power, their wealth, or their social notoriety. It is as if bouncing around the Italian (mis)justice system is considered punishment enough for the politically well connected, wealthy, or racially privileged. Amanda Cox was a drug promiscuous drug addicted during her “student” adventure in Italy. I’ve kept track of the case over the years and, yes, I believe she participated in the crime. Her well heeled parents put too much “heat” on the Italian politicos for a guilty verdict. And, yes, the crime will follow her the rest of her life since a not guilty verdict by an Italian court is without substance or meaning.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack D
    If AK was a "promiscuous drug addict" then so are most college students today. She smoked a little weed and had a few boyfriends, one at a time. This is well within the range of normal behavior in the 21st century. Most people don't have to (thank God) publicly air either their drug usage or their sexual history, but if they did, it would look a lot like hers for a lot of people. This does not make them murderers.
    , @Art Deco
    Her name is Amanda Kn0x, her parents are divorced, she's one of four children, her mother is a schoolteacher, and her father is a second echelon executive at a department store. Bourgeois she is. Well-heeled she is not, which is why she was working in Perugia as a barmaid to make rent.
    , @Art Deco
    In the Italian justice system, the courts act and then the thing goes into an endless appeals process. It goes back and forth until, at the end of the day, a person is found guilty or innocent based on their political power, their wealth, or their social notoriety.

    --

    I'm sure a schoolteacher's daughter from Seattle has lot's of pull with the Italian court system.
    , @WhatEvvs

    Amanda Cox was a drug promiscuous drug addicted during her “student” adventure in Italy
     
    .
    OK. But Amanda Knox was an average kid who got swept up in something she couldn't possibly have understood. Ditto for Raffaele.

    Foxy Coxy?


    I’ve kept track of the case over the years a
     
    I'll bet, you seem the type. This case is a textbook example of internet loonies fastening on a victim who can't fight back.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  103. @Pseudonymic Handle
    The Tv show Person of Interest is a superhero show in which the main characters are some sort of cyberpunk vigilantes that prevent interesting crimes from happening. The black policewoman Carter is upset with them at a point and decide to focus on her job as a homicide detective for a while rather than on the usual evil CEO's and governmental conspiracies. Unfortunately the crime she has to deal is a 17 years old black guy that has gunned down another black guy for a girl and doesn't even deny doing it. You can read the disappointment in her face.
    I thought it was really brave of PoI to show the real face of crime for a brief moment.

    Person of Interest is the only network television show I go out of my way to watch.

    (Except maybe for Scorpion — when I feel the urge to laugh at lame plots, lame characters, lame acting and lame science for an hour. )

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  104. @ foxy
    of course she has some role in it. She is typical young white women who lives a life including a lot of contact to men and a lot of contact to black guys. You go to Europe and befriend some black guys exactly to have this kind of adventure and drama – only hoping of course that in the end everything will turn out well, which it mostly does, but not this time.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack D
    By all accounts she barely knew Guede, if at all. She had taken a job working for a black guy who (surprise!) turned out to be a horrible boss - failing to pay her, etc. This is a typical youthful liberal mistake - trusting black people. But usually they get over it - maybe worst case they end up with a 1/2 black kid like Obama. And then they structure the rest of their life to get as far as possible away from black people, while still pretending to love them (at a distance). But this doesn't make her a murderer.
    , @Art Deco
    She is typical young white women who lives a life including a lot of contact to men and a lot of contact to black guys.

    1. That's not typical.

    2. If you have an attraction to blacks and that's motivating, you're not going to park yourself in a small city in central Italy.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  105. Daniel H says:
    @Art Deco
    Life would be so much more entertaining if well-to-do, good-looking white people like Amanda Knox and Haven Monahan were going around murdering and raping all the time.
    --
    Amanda Knox is a schoolteacher's daughter. She was enrolled in a state university back home and worked during the school year. Her last known address was a seedy apartment in the U-District in Seattle, which she was sharing with the boyfriend who took her back. Not that affluent. Her co-defendant Raffaele Sollecito is a doctor's kid from Bari, so he does qualify as affluent on the Italian scale. The annulment of their convictions has much more practical significance for him than for her.
    --
    That Ann Coulter fancies the case against Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito was the least bit plausible discredits just about everything she's ever said on her own authority. The two had just met a few weeks earlier and neither one had (by age 21) ever been arrested for even minor public order offenses (though they are known to have smoked weed). The Italian police managed to ruin the evidence to be garnered through computer forensics and the bra clasp which supposedly had a minute amount of Sollecito's DNA on it had been left uncollected for seven weeks in a room he had entered in the past. (The forensic evidence against Knox was completely discredited). Rudy Guede's fingerprints and DNA were all over Meredith Kercher's room; there is no credible evidence that Raffaele Sollecito knew Rudy Guede from a cord of wood; and Knox said she recognized Guede from around the neighborhood, but there is no credible evidence she knew his name or had ever conversed with him. The proscutor's argument
    was a lurid fantasy in which two newly acquainted people kill a third person in cahoots with someone they've never met before and with whom they have little in common.
    --
    I wouldn't try to force this case into the procrustean bed of American racial neuroses. This case was the issue of an incompetent/crooked police force and a crooked prosecutor, both of which were too unscrupulous and too proud to admit they had bollixed the whole case. You find cases like that in Oklahoma as well (see John Grisham's The Innocent Man). The case had another familiar feature: Meredith Kercher's stupid relatives bought what the prosecutor told them hook, line, and sinker, as did the British press.

    >>The prosecutor’s argument was a lurid fantasy in which two newly acquainted people kill a third person in cahoots with someone they’ve never met before and with whom they have little in common.

    Let’s not leave aside the fact that Ralph Sollecito was a virgin until he met Amanda Knox the week before. With the prosecutor’s theory we are to believe that a young, by all accounts, perfectly normal, Sollecito, newly acquainted with the delights of sexual intercourse with a beautiful young woman, had become so jaded with Miss Knox’s charms after a few nights together that he and her, to sharpen their edges, concocted a deadly sex game with knifes, torture, rape and murder. Please.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  106. @unit472
    It would be hard to imagine a 'Greater White Defendant' than Bill Clinton and The Rodhamster yet, like a lot of things in life, the having is not the same as the desire particularly when your defendant is your own reflection. It is difficult to catalogue the sleaze that emanated from the Clinton White House and that was part of their ability to survive. Every few weeks a new episode of tawdry, corrupt or venal misconduct would erupt and the push the last episode into the realm of 'old news'. For 8 plus years the drumbeat went on. Gennifer Flowers morphed into Paula Jones into Monica Lewinsky with a half dozen or so lesser bimbo eruptions along the way. John Huang became Charlie Trie then Buddhist Monks and Suma Ching Hai until Clinton was selling pardons to donors on his last day in office. The Rodhamster even tried to steal White House furniture to decorate the first real house they ever owned. Now the Rodhamster is back at it again even retaining the same attorney, David Kendall, who has made a lucrative career out of these scoundrels. Question is, do the Democrats have the stomach for another round of circling the wagons to protect them.

    I notice you politely skipped over the issue of “Arkancide” — the alarming frequency with which people close to the Clintons wind up dead under mysterious circumstances.

    Where there’s smoke, there’s fire. Even if 95% of the murders, suicides and fatal accidents of Clinton associates have nothing to do with their dealings with the Clintons, that still leaves the blood of 2 or 3 people on Bill and/or Hillary’s hands. More people than I’ve ever killed.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art Deco
    I notice you politely skipped over the issue of “Arkancide”

    Because it doesn't exist outside your head.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  107. Dave Pinsen says: • Website
    @melo
    Here's the original video for above article

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_JPrDklNukQ

    According to St Louis police, the attackers can face misdemeanor assault charges. There's no way this random incident that randomly happened could be a hate crime, right?

    I tweeted that video to a white guy expressing outrage/status posturing over the racist fraternity chanters. He responded that he could show me a million examples of white-on-black racism, etc. I noted that was unlikely, and that the reason the racist chant was such a big deal was because white racist incidents against blacks were so rare.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  108. I don’t pretend to know whether or not Amanda Knox is guilty of murder, but it’s clear the Italians should have convicted her of First Degree Skankiness with Aggravating Stupidity.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  109. Jack D says:
    @TheJester
    That an Italian court found Amanda Cox innocent means nothing. In the Italian justice system, the courts act and then the thing goes into an endless appeals process. It goes back and forth until, at the end of the day, a person is found guilty or innocent based on their political power, their wealth, or their social notoriety. It is as if bouncing around the Italian (mis)justice system is considered punishment enough for the politically well connected, wealthy, or racially privileged. Amanda Cox was a drug promiscuous drug addicted during her "student" adventure in Italy. I've kept track of the case over the years and, yes, I believe she participated in the crime. Her well heeled parents put too much "heat" on the Italian politicos for a guilty verdict. And, yes, the crime will follow her the rest of her life since a not guilty verdict by an Italian court is without substance or meaning.

    If AK was a “promiscuous drug addict” then so are most college students today. She smoked a little weed and had a few boyfriends, one at a time. This is well within the range of normal behavior in the 21st century. Most people don’t have to (thank God) publicly air either their drug usage or their sexual history, but if they did, it would look a lot like hers for a lot of people. This does not make them murderers.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  110. Jack D says:

    Aside from the fact that the Italian justice system just generally sucks, was there some kind of leftist SJW thing going on? Guede, by all accounts (even the cockamie prosecution version) the man who wielded the knife and whose DNA was all over the crime scene, got 16 years but AK and Sollecito who supposedly acted as accessories each received 25 or 26 (in both trials). WTF? Was this some sort of version of Wolfe’s Great White Defendant? Was a case in which the defendant was just the usual POS too boring for the Italian prosecutors?

    Read More
    • Replies: @HA
    "the man who wielded the knife and whose DNA was all over the crime scene, got 16 years but AK and Sollecito who supposedly acted as accessories each received 25 or 26 (in both trials). "

    As this article notes (be forewarned, it's Salon, but anyone trying to get details on this case is probably well into tabloid and rag-sheet territory already, so you might as well let that slide), Guede received a lighter sentence because he agreed to fast-track his trial (which gives you a 1/3 reduction right off the bat). Also, since he was 21 at the time of the murder (Sollecito was 23) he got a further reduction for being sufficiently youthful once Knox and Sollecito did.

    As the article also notes, there was some suspicious DNA evidence tied to both Knox and Sollecito, as well as the above-mentioned shifty retractions back and forth from both of them. (There's no mention in that article that the police destroyed his hard drive, either, which I myself mentioned earlier, so maybe that, too, is bogus.)

    Is that enough to make the prosecutor's claim of Satanic rituals reasonable beyond a doubt? I say no, and I still see no realistic motive for why Knox and Sollecito would kill anyone, but I do not think the matter is as cut and dried as some of Knox's supporters claim.

    http://www.salon.com/2015/03/27/amanda_knox_verdict_the_real_evidence_and_why_almost_everything_you_think_you_know_about_the_case_is_wrong/

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  111. Jack D says:
    @Erik Sieven
    @ foxy
    of course she has some role in it. She is typical young white women who lives a life including a lot of contact to men and a lot of contact to black guys. You go to Europe and befriend some black guys exactly to have this kind of adventure and drama - only hoping of course that in the end everything will turn out well, which it mostly does, but not this time.

    By all accounts she barely knew Guede, if at all. She had taken a job working for a black guy who (surprise!) turned out to be a horrible boss – failing to pay her, etc. This is a typical youthful liberal mistake – trusting black people. But usually they get over it – maybe worst case they end up with a 1/2 black kid like Obama. And then they structure the rest of their life to get as far as possible away from black people, while still pretending to love them (at a distance). But this doesn’t make her a murderer.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  112. Joel says:

    Guede is already free on day release (getting a history degree).

    Read More
    • Replies: @David In TN
    "Guede is already free on day release (getting a history degree)."

    And Meredith Kercher's family couldn't care less. They were fixated on having Amanda Knox imprisoned.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  113. Matra says:

    Several posters mentioned Ilana Mercer’s view that Knox is guilty. Mercer strikes me as having serious issues with virtually any woman she deems to be better looking than herself.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  114. Dave Pinsen says: • Website

    Allison Williams could play Amanda Knox in the TV movie.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  115. Art Deco says: • Website
    @TheJester
    That an Italian court found Amanda Cox innocent means nothing. In the Italian justice system, the courts act and then the thing goes into an endless appeals process. It goes back and forth until, at the end of the day, a person is found guilty or innocent based on their political power, their wealth, or their social notoriety. It is as if bouncing around the Italian (mis)justice system is considered punishment enough for the politically well connected, wealthy, or racially privileged. Amanda Cox was a drug promiscuous drug addicted during her "student" adventure in Italy. I've kept track of the case over the years and, yes, I believe she participated in the crime. Her well heeled parents put too much "heat" on the Italian politicos for a guilty verdict. And, yes, the crime will follow her the rest of her life since a not guilty verdict by an Italian court is without substance or meaning.

    Her name is Amanda Kn0x, her parents are divorced, she’s one of four children, her mother is a schoolteacher, and her father is a second echelon executive at a department store. Bourgeois she is. Well-heeled she is not, which is why she was working in Perugia as a barmaid to make rent.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  116. WhatEvvs [AKA "Bemused"] says:
    @anonymous

    read several books on the subject and I was struck by the fact that the majority of the Italian prosecution team was female. The top guy was a crazy man, but all of his seconds were women. I think they hated the pretty American girl and drove this farce with their passion to destroy her.
     
    Yes, that is also a strange aspect to all this. The court system is becoming more female in this country from what I've seen insofar as being government employees. In one case I was called to jury duty the judge, two prosecutors and two public defenders were all female. I guess they're getting preferential hiring by the government.

    The court system is becoming more female in this country

    You mean Italy? Are you in Italy?

    One book was quite pointed about how the assistant prosecutors were ultra-fashionable, and were very contemptuous of Knox’s Seattle casual attire, and lack of makeup. All this with the press’s obsession with Foxy Knoxy and sneers about how she was getting a free ride because she was pretty. Quite the opposite. I think those witches were out to get her.

    Peter Popham has a good writeup in The Independent, look it up.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous

    You mean Italy? Are you in Italy?
     
    No, I'm in the US, I suppose I should have been more clear about that. Coven of witches over there, covens over here too.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  117. Art Deco says: • Website
    @rod1963
    Knox made a good villain because she is a bit nutty and creepy looking. Her behavior after the murder with that sleazy Italian dude and during the initial trial made her look very bizarre and cold blooded.

    She basically incriminated herself even though she wasn't guilty. Her only crime was perhaps of being a total narcissist and upper class party girl with no clue how to comport herself as a human being.

    Knox made a good villain because she is a bit nutty and creepy looking.

    You know, some judgements one utters say more about the utterer than the object of judgment.

    Her behavior after the murder with that sleazy Italian dude

    The ‘sleazy Italian dude’ is a doctor’s kid / computer geek.

    and during the initial trial made her look very bizarre and cold blooded.

    Yeah, smiling at your family when you enter the courtroom will do that.

    She basically incriminated herself even though she wasn’t guilty. Her only crime was perhaps of being a total narcissist and upper class party girl with no clue how to comport herself as a human being.

    Because you’re well placed to call someone you’ve never met, a young woman with no shortage of friends who speak well of her and no previous history of pathological behavior a ‘total narcissist’, most particularly when your understanding of ‘upper-class party girl’ includes state university students working wage jobs on the side because their parents are ordinary salaried employees with three other children.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  118. Art Deco says: • Website
    @Kevin O'Keeffe
    "There is no indication (but Guede’s cock-and-bull) that she knew Guede."

    Guede visited Knox's residence, on 'X' number of occasions. You can't just say "He was there to see the roommate/victim, so Knox didn't know him." Maybe she did, and maybe she didn't, but the fact he was a vistor in her home, definitely constitutes some degree of evidence that Knox knew him.

    Guede visited Knox’s residence, on ‘X’ number of occasions.

    No, he did not. He was an acquaintance of the youths who lived in the downstairs flat, not the women living in the upstairs flat. You live in an apartment building, how many of your neighbors’ casual friends you know? If you’re like most people, none.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  119. Art Deco says: • Website
    @Paul Mendez
    I notice you politely skipped over the issue of "Arkancide" -- the alarming frequency with which people close to the Clintons wind up dead under mysterious circumstances.

    Where there's smoke, there's fire. Even if 95% of the murders, suicides and fatal accidents of Clinton associates have nothing to do with their dealings with the Clintons, that still leaves the blood of 2 or 3 people on Bill and/or Hillary's hands. More people than I've ever killed.

    I notice you politely skipped over the issue of “Arkancide”

    Because it doesn’t exist outside your head.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Paul Mendez
    Well, if the President & Founding Member of the Amanda Knox Fan Club of North America says I'm delusional, I must really be delusional.

    Thanks for the reality check!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  120. WhatEvvs [AKA "Bemused"] says:
    @Kevin O'Keeffe
    "There is no indication (but Guede’s cock-and-bull) that she knew Guede."

    Guede visited Knox's residence, on 'X' number of occasions. You can't just say "He was there to see the roommate/victim, so Knox didn't know him." Maybe she did, and maybe she didn't, but the fact he was a vistor in her home, definitely constitutes some degree of evidence that Knox knew him.

    No. Get some facts before you speak. There is a thing called the Internet.

    The place was a commune, with 4 girls (Knox, Kercher and two Italians) living on one floor, and two Italian guys living in proximity in the basement. Knox met Guede once, tops, by chance.

    In Perugia, Knox shared a four-bedroom ground-floor apartment in a house at Via della Pergola 7, the front door did not have a spring latch and had to be closed with a key. A minute’s walk from the house was Piazza Grimana, where students often gathered.[22] Her flatmates were two Italian women in their late twenties, and Kercher. Kercher and Knox moved in on 10 and 20 September 2007, respectively, meeting each other for the first time.[23] Knox was employed part-time at a bar, Le Chic, which was owned by a Congolese man, Diya Patrick Lumumba. She told flatmates that she was going to quit because he was not paying her; Lumumba denied this.[24] Kercher’s English women friends saw relatively little of Knox, as she preferred to mix with Italians.[25]
    The walk-out semi-basement of the house was rented by young Italian men with whom both Kercher and Knox were friendly. One, Giacomo, spent time in the girls’ flat due to a shared interest in music. Returning home at 2 am one night in mid October, Knox, Kercher, Giacomo and another basement resident met Rudy Guede whom the Italians knew from playing basketball with him at Piazza Grimana.[26] Guede attached himself to the group and asked about Knox. He was invited into the basement and talked about her with the Italians. Knox and then Kercher came down to join them. At 4:30 am Kercher left, saying she was going to bed, and Knox followed her out

    Guede’s relationship was with the Italian guys. They used to smoke dope. Speculation: Guede likely had a sexual thing for Knox and killed Kercher in a rage when she discovered him in the course of robbing the place.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amanda_Knox#Via_della_Pergola_7

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  121. Art Deco says: • Website
    @Erik Sieven
    @ foxy
    of course she has some role in it. She is typical young white women who lives a life including a lot of contact to men and a lot of contact to black guys. You go to Europe and befriend some black guys exactly to have this kind of adventure and drama - only hoping of course that in the end everything will turn out well, which it mostly does, but not this time.

    She is typical young white women who lives a life including a lot of contact to men and a lot of contact to black guys.

    1. That’s not typical.

    2. If you have an attraction to blacks and that’s motivating, you’re not going to park yourself in a small city in central Italy.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  122. Art Deco says: • Website
    @TheJester
    That an Italian court found Amanda Cox innocent means nothing. In the Italian justice system, the courts act and then the thing goes into an endless appeals process. It goes back and forth until, at the end of the day, a person is found guilty or innocent based on their political power, their wealth, or their social notoriety. It is as if bouncing around the Italian (mis)justice system is considered punishment enough for the politically well connected, wealthy, or racially privileged. Amanda Cox was a drug promiscuous drug addicted during her "student" adventure in Italy. I've kept track of the case over the years and, yes, I believe she participated in the crime. Her well heeled parents put too much "heat" on the Italian politicos for a guilty verdict. And, yes, the crime will follow her the rest of her life since a not guilty verdict by an Italian court is without substance or meaning.

    In the Italian justice system, the courts act and then the thing goes into an endless appeals process. It goes back and forth until, at the end of the day, a person is found guilty or innocent based on their political power, their wealth, or their social notoriety.

    I’m sure a schoolteacher’s daughter from Seattle has lot’s of pull with the Italian court system.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  123. Art Deco says: • Website
    @No name
    Exactly. That's all I was trying to say. It's obvious that the dna evidence against her was bogus and I'm not sure why the Italian prosecutors tried to say that she actually committed the crime instead of just being an accomplice. I don't think Sollecito had anything to do with it at all.

    I'm surprised, though I shouldn't be, that everyone here believes that police departments all over the world and engaged in a massive conspiracy to lock up innocent people by getting false confessions from everyone. If that were true, wouldn't that mean most of the blacks in prison in America are innocent, and wouldn't that mean that all the talk on here about black criminality is wrong? And you're using media reports to back up your story, a media that's constantly attacked on this site as being completely untrustworthy. You're arguing with your enemies on this one and using their reporting to do it. Ironic.

    that everyone here believes that police departments all over the world and engaged in a massive conspiracy to lock up innocent people by getting false confessions from everyone. I

    No one here even implied they believe that. What people believe is that police and prosecutors engaged in a discrete conspiracy to lock up two young people because they lacked the character to admit they were wrong.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  124. Art Deco says: • Website
    @Simon
    Is Italy a PC-whipped society. I don't get that impression. Quite the opposite.

    As I recall, Knox and her boyfriend weren't locked up for wielding the knife but for providing the killer with an alibi. I don't know why they did this. I'm guessing they were confused/disoriented from lack of sleep, or something else. Anyway, this was dumb. If you're not thinking straight just keep quiet and don't say anything.

    And this whole situation may be the opposite of what people here are assuming: instead of a PC justice system trying to frame two white kids for a black crime, it may have been clueless Portlandians trying to save their black friend from "unjust" accusations by "racist" police. If that was the case the twits deserved jail time.

    As I recall, Knox and her boyfriend weren’t locked up for wielding the knife but for providing the killer with an alibi. I don’t know why they did this

    You don’t recall because neither of them knew Rudy Guede.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  125. Matra says:
    @Lurker

    the British press being far more suspicious of Knox, and like acting, they do it better than we do
     
    As far as most Brits are concerned they assume she is guilty. Because as we all 'know' the justice system is rigged to protect white, middle class people like AK.

    Half jewish/asians - like the victim - can never get a fair shake under the evil racist system.

    Most Brits are entirely unaware of the guy who was convicted or just how unlikely it is that AK is the killer and that he is innocent. Because Law & Order etc etc

    British media coverage of this murder was a bit like the Louise Woodward case in Massachusetts back in 1997. Except then they whipped up the mob in favour of the convicted (an English nanny). Creating outrage, especially when the readers are of the same nationality as the “victim”, never fails to sell newspapers. Yet where were these tabloids on Rotherham and Rochdale?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Tetris
    Whoah that takes me back. The indignation in Britain over the Woodward conviction was because it was obviously based on a linguistic misunderstanding. "Popping" means hitting in the U.S. and putting in Britain.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  126. Art Deco says: • Website
    @sabril
    I'm pretty confident that Knox played a role in the murder. My guess is that she and Sollecito set up Kercher to be raped by Guede and things went downhill from there.

    The reason I believe that Knox played a role is that her story doesn't add up. Therefore she is most likely hiding something and what could she possibly be hiding besides her having played a role in the murder. This may not be quite enough evidence to convict her, but still.

    My guess is that she and Sollecito set up Kercher to be raped by Guede and things went downhill from there.

    There is no indication at either she or Sollecito knew Rudy Guede. Sollecito hadn’t met Knox until a few weeks earlier.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack D
    According to the wiki, she had met Guede while visiting her downstair neighbors at least once, but in the sense that you drop by someone's apartment and one of their friends/acquaintances are there - it has very little significance. Why would she set up her roommate to be raped/murdered by someone she barely knew? Why did Guede need her help? He was apparently capable of planning these crimes on his own. He had committed several other break-ins before he broke into the girls' flat.
    , @sabril
    "There is no indication at either she or Sollecito knew Rudy Guede. Sollecito hadn’t met Knox until a few weeks earlier."

    Not sure what your point is here, it doesn't change the fact that Knox's story doesn't add up AFAICT. I agree that there is not enough evidence to be confident of how exactly she was involved in the murder or what her motivations were.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  127. Art Deco says: • Website
    @Simon
    Is Italy a PC-whipped society. I don't get that impression. Quite the opposite.

    As I recall, Knox and her boyfriend weren't locked up for wielding the knife but for providing the killer with an alibi. I don't know why they did this. I'm guessing they were confused/disoriented from lack of sleep, or something else. Anyway, this was dumb. If you're not thinking straight just keep quiet and don't say anything.

    And this whole situation may be the opposite of what people here are assuming: instead of a PC justice system trying to frame two white kids for a black crime, it may have been clueless Portlandians trying to save their black friend from "unjust" accusations by "racist" police. If that was the case the twits deserved jail time.

    it may have been clueless Portlandians trying to save their black friend from “unjust” accusations by “racist” police. If that was the case the twits deserved jail time.

    Amazing the printing plates in people’s heads. Neither Sollecito nor Knox can be shown to have been the least bit acquainted with Rudy Guede.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  128. @Joel
    Guede is already free on day release (getting a history degree).

    “Guede is already free on day release (getting a history degree).”

    And Meredith Kercher’s family couldn’t care less. They were fixated on having Amanda Knox imprisoned.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SPMoore8
    I completely agree. Anyone who is "outraged" by Amanda Knox' exoneration should be even more outraged that the person who indisputably raped and murdered the young woman is already on a form of parole, a mere seven years after the murder.

    This tells me that a lot of the hatred of Amanda Knox is purely visceral and fueled by who knows what, but certainly not the facts of the case. I mean, the best one can say about the evidence is that Amanda was part of a conspiracy, and "did something" either before or after the murder, since there is no DNA from her at the actual murder scene. But even then the penalty should not be a prison sentence that is three times the length of the actual murder. (Yes, I know the technicalities of Italian law but they are still ludicrous.)

    Since Guede's guilt in the rape/murder is undeniably greater than either Amanda or her then boyfriend (if not being exclusive), and he is already being allowed out, then continuing the attempt to jail the other two is absurd. (As if Amanda would have ever been extradited anyway.) I expect the Selene Nelsons of the world will continue to describe the massive conspiracy that has let a 21st century Lizzie Borden loose, but the prosecution's narrative has always sounded very Grassy Knoll to me.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  129. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    Amanda Knox tried to frame the black guy:

    While overturning the murder conviction, the court upheld a guilty verdict against Knox for the slander of Patrick Lumumba, confirming that a three-year sentence would remain. The term for that sentence had already been served while imprisoned on the earlier charges.[5][94] The remaining guilty verdict is based on a statement implicating Lumumba in the murder made by Knox to the police after interrogations that Knox described as abusive.[95] This accusation against Lumumba was withdrawn after the interrogation and was ruled inadmissible in the murder trial but was allowed as evidence during the slander case.[96]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  130. Alfa158 says:
    @NOTA
    This is the reason for the advice that you should never talk to the police in any matter where you could conceivably be the suspect without your lawyer present.

    A few years back there was a YouTube video by a law professor giving a real life example of why that is correct.
    A very experienced criminal defense attorney had gotten into a spirited argument in a court hallway with a female assistant DA. Shortly afterward the attorney was approached by a police detective who told him that the ADA was going to file a criminal complaint that he had grabbed her by the shoulders during the argument and shaken her, so could the attorney give his side of the story and clear this all up. The attorney knew all the ways that suspects will say dumb things, giving ambiguous answers, talking too much, volunteering extra detail etc., so he figured he could safely talk to the cop alone without incriminating himself.
    He proceeded to give a perfect statement that it was all false, they had talked but there was no physical contact whatsoever, period, end of discussion.
    The defense attorney was indicted. At the trial the ADA repeated her accusations, the attorney testified again that there was no contact. The detective was asked to read from his notes on his conversation with the defendant. The detective testified that the defendant told him that he had grabbed the victim by her shoulders but that he was only kidding around, and never shook her. The attorney was convicted of felony assault.
    The moral of the story being that even if your story is perfect, you have to have a lawyer present if for no other reason to back up what you actually said and keep the police from lying about it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack D
    Even better, never speak to the police at all. You have a 5th Amendment right not to incriminate yourself. Even if you have committed no underlying crime, you can, like Scooter Libby, be convicted for making false statement to an officer. If you make NO statement, you cannot be convicted of making a false statement. Maybe there are instances where your counsel might direct you to speak to the police in his or her presence and you should follow their advice (after questioning them on it) but in general you will rarely go wrong by NOT talking to the cops. You are NOT going to talk your way out of an arrest if they think that they have evidence against you already, but the chances of talking your way IN to an arrest are good. You don't have to be an A-hole and tell the cops to go F themselves. You can do as the late David Carr did - whenever the police would ask him a question (e.g. "Where did you get those drugs?") he would politely say to them, "I'm sorry officer, I can't help you with that."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  131. @OhComeOn
    Knox is catnip for men...

    She's a victim AND she's sexually open

    Two of my gf's from college followed the victim/sexually open strategy and landed fantastic men. "Oh my ex hit me!"--men love that shit...I mean in both cases it was a complete fabrication...but men LOVE that shit.

    Knox at least is a genuine victim, so she's actually 1 up over my friends

    Be careful though, some women over play the victim role. My aunt, sadly, has played the damsel in distress role numerous times. Men fall for her charm, and then end up being verbally and mentally abused by her. She then ends the relationship and tells her new boyfriend that she is a ‘battered woman’.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Marty T
    That would never work on me. I want a girl who can stand up for herself.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  132. Svigor says:

    What have you been smoking?

    We know what you like smoking.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  133. HA says:
    @Stan D Mute

    I’m disappointed that Ann Coulter blames Knox, although she also apparently believes evolution is a liberal hoax, so you know… she may be a talented polemicist but she’s not exactly the most rigorously logical thinker.
     
    Re: Coulter's religiosity - she sells books for a living to conservatives. I'd take her religiosity with a bit of salt.

    Re: Coulter's opinion on Knox, she's stuck on the false accusation against negro Lumama. And I agree that's the biggest strike against Knox. But I can imagine how it went down ... Italian cops look at scene and know its a negro's handiwork due to rape and brutality. Interrogating Knox, "Do you know any negroes?" Knox, "Just my boss Lumama." "Did you see Lumama that night? Did he come here? You sent him a text saying "see you later" - was he there? We know he was there!" Knox, "I don't know, I don't know, I'm so scared and confused! Maybe.." "Maybe! You know he was there, you wrote "see you later" - when did you let him in? Did you hear them? Why are you lying!?!" Etc.

    Cops at that point didn't have Guede. They knew a negro did it. They had to make a case quick against somebody so they beat the stupid liberal white girl down mentally until she placed a negro at the scene. After they had Guede, they already put Knox in the crime and had to keep her there to save face.

    Seems more plausible than some liberal idiot brutally knifing another liberal idiot female. What we do know is negro Guede did it (with or without Knox). I don't see "beyond a reasonable doubt" for Knox so she walks anyway.

    “Re: Coulter’s opinion on Knox, she’s stuck on the false accusation against negro Lumama. And I agree that’s the biggest strike against Knox. But I can imagine how it went down … “

    But the Knox interview which got Lumumba jailed was only two hours. According to the police (the interview wasn’t taped), as soon as they told her that her boyfriend had withdrawn her alibi, she placed herself at the scene overhearing Lumumba murder her roommate. Later, while she was in jail, she told her mother she had made all that up, but neither she nor the mother bothered to tell anyone and get the guy released. Not exactly citizens of the year.

    After Knox was freed, her boyfriend remained in prison, and though I didn’t follow her interviews closely, I kept waiting for a comment along the lines of “you know, my ex is still doing time for this — I hope my supporters will help redress that injustice as well”, but it was always all about her. Maybe she did speak up for him, and the editors didn’t bother with it, but again, no sympathy points.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  134. HA says:
    @Justin
    Who did it, the somewhat air-headed white schoolgirl, or the psychotic black drifter with a long criminal rap sheet? I guess for people raised on crime fiction, Rudy Guede seems like the red herring character/fall guy set up by the caucasian criminal mastermind, Amanda Knox.

    You really do have to be pretty amazingly stupid or out of touch with reality to believe Amanda Knox did it. It is bizarre how so many Europeans seem intent on believing Amanda killed Meredith, I chalk it up to the hysterical anti-American (anti-white American, at least) sentiment so many Europeans have.

    I'm disappointed that Ann Coulter blames Knox, although she also apparently believes evolution is a liberal hoax, so you know... she may be a talented polemicist but she's not exactly the most rigorously logical thinker.

    “I’m disappointed that Ann Coulter blames Knox,…”

    Coulter’s article repeated the claim that Knox and her boyfriend had bought a bottle of bleach after the murders, presumably to clean up things. When I read that, I, too, assumed Knox was guilty, and I don’t blame Coulter for thinking the same.

    However, the bleach purchase never happened. Yes, Coulter should revise her accusations in light of that debunking, but between Knox’s PR wing and Italian rumor mills, there’s a lot of misinformation floating around, some of it due to Knox and Sollecito themselves, so that anyone who pretends that this “discredits just about everything [Coulter] ever said” needs to back off the caffeine or something.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art Deco
    some of it due to Knox and Sollecito themselves, so that anyone who pretends that this “discredits just about everything [Coulter] ever said” needs to back off the caffeine or something.

    Nope. The case was a manure sandwich from the beginning. Rudy Guede's fingerprints and DNA were readily located at multiple loci in Kercher's bedroom and in the bathroom and his account of his activities almost comically improvised. Yet, somehow, Sollecito and Knox clean up the scene so deftly and thoroughly that the only indication of RS presence is a minute quantity of DNA on a bra clasp (a clasp left uncollected for seven weeks in a room in which Sollecito had entered). And isn't it interesting how it was impossible to establish a timeline of their activities online because, oopsy daisy, the police destroyed Sollecito's hard drive. Coulter has actually made reference to supposed biological material from Kercher on the tip of one of Sollecito's kitchen knives (a forensic finding later discredited).

    So, Ann Coulter's all in on the following: two people who met three weeks ago (neither of whom have any history of criminal acts beyond smoking dope) team up with a 3d person no one can demonstrate they'd ever met before for some sort of sexual orgy which then goes awry. Their accomplice kills Meredith Kercher, craps in her toilet, steals money from her purse, and flees the scene while Knox and Sollecito stage a break in and apply their magical bleach which washes away almost all evidence of Sollecito's presence while leaving Guede's intact.

    Ann Coulter's evidence for that is that two confused young people cannot recall securely the sequence of events in their activities over a 12 hour period and tell conflicting stories which vary with the telling.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  135. Wyrd says:

    Because Rudy Guede is black, I must defend his absolute innocence, you racists!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  136. HA says:
    @Jack D
    Aside from the fact that the Italian justice system just generally sucks, was there some kind of leftist SJW thing going on? Guede, by all accounts (even the cockamie prosecution version) the man who wielded the knife and whose DNA was all over the crime scene, got 16 years but AK and Sollecito who supposedly acted as accessories each received 25 or 26 (in both trials). WTF? Was this some sort of version of Wolfe's Great White Defendant? Was a case in which the defendant was just the usual POS too boring for the Italian prosecutors?

    “the man who wielded the knife and whose DNA was all over the crime scene, got 16 years but AK and Sollecito who supposedly acted as accessories each received 25 or 26 (in both trials). “

    As this article notes (be forewarned, it’s Salon, but anyone trying to get details on this case is probably well into tabloid and rag-sheet territory already, so you might as well let that slide), Guede received a lighter sentence because he agreed to fast-track his trial (which gives you a 1/3 reduction right off the bat). Also, since he was 21 at the time of the murder (Sollecito was 23) he got a further reduction for being sufficiently youthful once Knox and Sollecito did.

    As the article also notes, there was some suspicious DNA evidence tied to both Knox and Sollecito, as well as the above-mentioned shifty retractions back and forth from both of them. (There’s no mention in that article that the police destroyed his hard drive, either, which I myself mentioned earlier, so maybe that, too, is bogus.)

    Is that enough to make the prosecutor’s claim of Satanic rituals reasonable beyond a doubt? I say no, and I still see no realistic motive for why Knox and Sollecito would kill anyone, but I do not think the matter is as cut and dried as some of Knox’s supporters claim.

    http://www.salon.com/2015/03/27/amanda_knox_verdict_the_real_evidence_and_why_almost_everything_you_think_you_know_about_the_case_is_wrong/

    Read More
    • Replies: @greenstalk

    As the article also notes, there was some suspicious DNA evidence tied to both Knox and Sollecito
     
    The article is dishonest bullshit. It's description of the evidence is completely wrong.

    Knox’s DNA was found on the handle of the murder weapon – a knife belonging to Sollecito – and Kercher’s was found on the blade.

    No trace of Kercher’s DNA was found on that knife, which was not the murder weapon. It's hardly a surprise that Knox's DNA was on the handle of a knife found in her boyfriends house, a house she spent a good deal of time in.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  137. I recall the British press being far more suspicious of Knox, and like acting, they do it better than we do.

    The British press makes the American press look like fanatical guardians of truth and honesty. They’re entertaining, at times, but they’re also terribly biased. One of their biases is against (white) Americans.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  138. @Art Deco
    I notice you politely skipped over the issue of “Arkancide”

    Because it doesn't exist outside your head.

    Well, if the President & Founding Member of the Amanda Knox Fan Club of North America says I’m delusional, I must really be delusional.

    Thanks for the reality check!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  139. @HA
    "the man who wielded the knife and whose DNA was all over the crime scene, got 16 years but AK and Sollecito who supposedly acted as accessories each received 25 or 26 (in both trials). "

    As this article notes (be forewarned, it's Salon, but anyone trying to get details on this case is probably well into tabloid and rag-sheet territory already, so you might as well let that slide), Guede received a lighter sentence because he agreed to fast-track his trial (which gives you a 1/3 reduction right off the bat). Also, since he was 21 at the time of the murder (Sollecito was 23) he got a further reduction for being sufficiently youthful once Knox and Sollecito did.

    As the article also notes, there was some suspicious DNA evidence tied to both Knox and Sollecito, as well as the above-mentioned shifty retractions back and forth from both of them. (There's no mention in that article that the police destroyed his hard drive, either, which I myself mentioned earlier, so maybe that, too, is bogus.)

    Is that enough to make the prosecutor's claim of Satanic rituals reasonable beyond a doubt? I say no, and I still see no realistic motive for why Knox and Sollecito would kill anyone, but I do not think the matter is as cut and dried as some of Knox's supporters claim.

    http://www.salon.com/2015/03/27/amanda_knox_verdict_the_real_evidence_and_why_almost_everything_you_think_you_know_about_the_case_is_wrong/

    As the article also notes, there was some suspicious DNA evidence tied to both Knox and Sollecito

    The article is dishonest bullshit. It’s description of the evidence is completely wrong.

    Knox’s DNA was found on the handle of the murder weapon – a knife belonging to Sollecito – and Kercher’s was found on the blade.

    No trace of Kercher’s DNA was found on that knife, which was not the murder weapon. It’s hardly a surprise that Knox’s DNA was on the handle of a knife found in her boyfriends house, a house she spent a good deal of time in.

    Read More
    • Replies: @HA
    "No trace of Kercher’s DNA was found on that knife, which was not the murder weapon. It’s hardly a surprise that Knox’s DNA was on the handle of a knife found in her boyfriends house, a house she spent a good deal of time in."

    The comments in the article push the knife questions back and forth as well. If you're clear on the fact that it wasn't the murder weapon, and that the DNA evidence there was innocently placed (or wasn't there to begin with), that's fine. But others aren't, and as shady as Salon is, it's still probably better than "some guy in a comment told me it was nonsense and other people agreed".

    Moreover, there's much more in that article that puts Knox's credibility in doubt, and no one seems to be disputing that. And if you claim that one wrong claim can discredit everything else, then that likewise means there is really not much reason for giving Knox any credibility either. Ultimately, that has much to do with why she endured everything she endured, but like I said, I see no proof beyond a reasonable doubt as to why she would be considered guilty of the murder.

    , @HA
    Regarding the knife, here's the Wiki take:

    The three prosecution pathologists said a knife found in Sollecito's kitchen, which the prosecution said was the murder weapon, was compatible with the most serious of the neck wounds, but not other ones.[29]...The defence teams called forensic pathologists...[who] agreed that a single knife with a blade a little over 3 inches long had inflicted all the cuts suffered by Kercher, and not the much larger knife found in Sollecito's kitchen.
     
    So, claiming the knife was or wasn't used in the murder comes down to which set of conflicting experts one believes, which in turn means that making that the fulcrum over which Knox's guilt or innocence pivots is not going to lead to anything rock-solid. And again, none of that addresses the numerous other shady things Knox did that led to her arrest, and the Wiki details a good deal of that, so people can read it for themselves. Yes, it's Wiki, but that's a step up from Salon.

    Was she guilty of murder? No. But as to why so many people thought she was lying, or had something to hide, I can certainly understand.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Meredith_Kercher

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  140. Kylie says:
    @D. K.
    You have a new Great White Defendant in L.A., Steve-- and he is worth tens of millions of dollars! Personally, I do not believe that his bathroom utterances to himself were a confession to three murders, let alone that they should be admitted into evidence, under an exception to the Hearsay Rule, at all. It will eventually be a very interesting trial-- beginning with the pre-trial motions!

    I think that it is typically low of the D.A., however, to charge the special circumstance of "lying in wait," since it is obvious that the victim let her killer into her house herself, and that the killer merely waited until she had turned her back on him to shoot her, execution style, in the back of her head. I fail to see how that courtesy to a very old-and-dear friend would constitute his "lying in wait," as a matter of criminal law.

    I also think that the other claimed special circumstance, that of murdering a witness, is a dubious one, since there was no formal case against the defendant, in New York, when the prospective witness was murdered, in California. There is no proof, only rife speculation, that she actually was a witness-- before, during or after the fact-- in the unsolved case of the 1982 disappearance of the defendant's first wife, regardless.

    That the D.A. is going to waste millions of extra dollars of taxpayer money to try the case as a death-penalty case, against a crazy (albeit seemingly sane) defendant who is about to turn 72, and who is obviously in poor and deteriorating health, when the chance of his ever living long enough to run out of appeals and make it to the death chamber, even if he is convicted in the first instance, is ridiculously long, is pathetic, if predictable.

    At any rate, I have had the appropriate defense outlined since Chapter 5 of "The Jinx" ended, a few weeks ago-- and it is a better defense than the one that got him off, down in Galveston, in 2003, because he does not have to admit to killing the decedent-- and, of course, he did not dismember the corpse, drop it in the bay, and then go back and retrieve the victim's head, after his remains were washed back ashore, and dispose of it elsewhere!

    Durst is fascinating.

    When I read about his arrest, I had to rewatch “All Good Things”, a very thinly disguised account of the disappearance of his wife and the murder and dismemberment of his neighbor. Ryan Gosling, who often plays a sensitive but manly type, was really chilling as “David Marks” (Robert Durst).

    Read More
    • Replies: @D. K.
    I almost picked that up at the library, the other day, but they charge a buck for DVDs, and I had no money on me. I noticed on the DVD cover that Roger Ebert had proclaimed it one of the best movies of the year (2010), which surprised me. I definitely hope to watch it soon.

    I (unsurprisingly) believe that Robert Durst murdered his friend of thirty-five years, Susan Berman. Whether that was because she was extorting him, or just because he was unwilling to risk that she might tell D.A. Jeanine Pirro's investigators anything at all incriminating, I do not know. Regardless, as an American and as a former officer of the court, I believe in the adversarial system-- meaning that the L.A. D.A. needs to prove the case in court, beyond a reasonable doubt, based only on the admitted evidence, to a jury that has sworn to do its duty, presuming the innocence of the defendant. My individual beliefs about the truth of the matter, or the character of the defendant, are all beside the point. I believe that it is a very defensible case, on those terms, unless the L.A. D.A. has something more on Durst than what we now know. (As for that incriminating note to the "Beverley [sic] Hills Police" that was postmarked on December 23, 2000, I have a quite-plausible defense for that piece of evidence, in particular.)

    As for Robert Durst's unfortunate first wife, the former Kathleen McCormack, I (unsurprisingly) believe that he killed her, on Sunday evening, January 31, 1982. I also believe that Susan Berman was the one who called the medical school, the following day, pretending to be Kathie Durst, and that Ms. Berman was privy to the fact that Mrs. Durst was dead already. Whether Bob Durst killed his wife intentionally or accidentally, during the course of yet another argument that got out of hand, I do not know. Whether he ever told Ms. Berman the truth about how Kathie Durst died, I do not know. I believe it very likely, though, that Bob dismembered Kathie's body, as he later would Morris Black's, and then dumped it near Ship Bottom, New Jersey, on Tuesday, February 2, 1982. Whether he disposed of it on land or at sea, I do not know. I do not believe that he ever will talk, in that regard; so, I do not believe that the McCormack family, and Kathie Durst's very loyal friends, ever will get the closure that they are hoping for, now, even if Robert Durst is convicted in L.A. for Susan Berman's murder.

    As for Robert Durst's own story about the Morris Black slaying, in September 2001, it was laughable on the face of it. How did Morris Black enter Durst's apartment? Are we to believe that this paranoid man, hiding out from the New York authorities, with a gun to protect him from Jeanine Pirro's Arab bloodlust for his Jewish hide, left his apartment unlocked, and his guns lying out in the open for Morris Black to get his hands on, while Durst was out of the boarding house, after Black had supposedly been ordered never to step foot in the place again, because he had allegedly attempted to shoot his eviction notice? Are we to believe that there was a bullet hole in the wall, nearly six feet up, because Morris Black had shot at his eviction notice and missed? Are we to believe that someone other than Robert Durst retrieved the head of Morris Black, after his body parts had washed back ashore, and has been holding on to it, ever since, without coming forward with the most crucial piece of forensic evidence, in a local case that was a national sensation? Most tellingly, are we to take the word of the man who dismembered and disposed of Morris Black's body parts that only one accidental shot was fired, that fateful night, when one of Robert Durst's neighbors testified under oath that she had heard two shots, while no one, other than Durst himself, testified to hearing a shot, on the earlier occasion, when Morris Black supposedly shot amiss at his own eviction notice, while in Robert Durst's apartment? The size of what that jury swallowed was just amazing!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  141. donut says:
    @Wilkey
    Yeah, that's why I said mildly. The still photos of her made it look like she was pretty damn indifferent, but if you take enough photos you can make someone look like they're reacting almost anyway you want them to.

    This should be no surprise to anyone but is still entertaining :

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  142. anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @WhatEvvs

    The court system is becoming more female in this country
     
    You mean Italy? Are you in Italy?

    One book was quite pointed about how the assistant prosecutors were ultra-fashionable, and were very contemptuous of Knox's Seattle casual attire, and lack of makeup. All this with the press's obsession with Foxy Knoxy and sneers about how she was getting a free ride because she was pretty. Quite the opposite. I think those witches were out to get her.

    Peter Popham has a good writeup in The Independent, look it up.

    You mean Italy? Are you in Italy?

    No, I’m in the US, I suppose I should have been more clear about that. Coven of witches over there, covens over here too.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  143. anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    It’s hard to tell what those Italian police are really like. Not having been there it’s hard to tell what their demeanor was, how intimidating they were, did they give her rough treatment, did they deliberately set out to disorient her, etc. Also, how much do those guardians of the law over there lie for whatever reason? Since Guede’s DNA was on the victim it seems like a straightforward case yet somehow they went in for some strange plot between strangers.
    They’ll be releasing the killer Guede back out into the free world where sooner or later he’ll do it again. What are all these Africans doing roaming around Italy anyway?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  144. Big Bill says:
    @Svigor
    More oppression of minorities:

    http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/taraji-p-henson-apologizes-glendale-785010

    The cops were supremely lenient with her son, and this bitch throws them under the bus. Until the irrefutable evidence comes out showing how full of shit she is.


    She went on to explain that her son was also racially profiled by Glendale police. "My child has been racially profiled. He was in Glendale, California and did exactly everything the cops told him to do, including letting them illegally search his car,” Henson said. “It was bogus because they didn’t give him the ticket for what he was pulled over for.”
     
    LOL. I wonder how many no-nonsense legal guides have been written explicitly for typical black Americans. One supposes there are many. At this point, you'd think charities would distribute them to blacks for free. Regardless, simple legal concepts like "a search consented to is a legal one" and "police sometimes let you go even when they don't have to" (ever heard of a warning, dumbass?) simply do not penetrate into black skulls.

    The apology came hours after a video obtained by the Los Angeles Times showed the encounter between Henson's son and Glendale police, disproving that police racially profiled him.
     
    Lefties don't seem to be clamoring for blanket surveillance coverage/recording of police while they're on duty, do they? Gee, I wonder if that's because they know that, as in this situation, the evidence will, more often than not, exonerate the cops and show the "oppressed" to be full of shit?

    And last year there was that black LA actress whose boyfriend was humping her on a downtown LA street like she was a bitch in heat. The police intervened and she cried racism.

    If it weren’t for people recording a video from the second floor of an office building she would have gotten away with it.

    Thank goodness for police video cameras

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  145. SPMoore8 says:
    @David In TN
    "Guede is already free on day release (getting a history degree)."

    And Meredith Kercher's family couldn't care less. They were fixated on having Amanda Knox imprisoned.

    I completely agree. Anyone who is “outraged” by Amanda Knox’ exoneration should be even more outraged that the person who indisputably raped and murdered the young woman is already on a form of parole, a mere seven years after the murder.

    This tells me that a lot of the hatred of Amanda Knox is purely visceral and fueled by who knows what, but certainly not the facts of the case. I mean, the best one can say about the evidence is that Amanda was part of a conspiracy, and “did something” either before or after the murder, since there is no DNA from her at the actual murder scene. But even then the penalty should not be a prison sentence that is three times the length of the actual murder. (Yes, I know the technicalities of Italian law but they are still ludicrous.)

    Since Guede’s guilt in the rape/murder is undeniably greater than either Amanda or her then boyfriend (if not being exclusive), and he is already being allowed out, then continuing the attempt to jail the other two is absurd. (As if Amanda would have ever been extradited anyway.) I expect the Selene Nelsons of the world will continue to describe the massive conspiracy that has let a 21st century Lizzie Borden loose, but the prosecution’s narrative has always sounded very Grassy Knoll to me.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art Deco
    This tells me that a lot of the hatred of Amanda Knox is purely visceral and fueled by who knows what, but certainly not the facts of the case.

    What amazes you in these cases as portrayed in the media is that family members seem seldom if ever to have a perspective distinct from the public postures of the prosecutors. In The Innocent Man, paternal side relatives of the deceased Debra Carter were stomping around town uttering threats against the exonerated defendants and complaints against anyone who would associate with their families after the DNA evidence had discredited the prosecution's case against the two men who'd spent 11 years in prison for nothing. In for a dime, in for a dollar.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  146. asdf says:

    She’s an archetype villain. The fact that she’s not guilty bums out every newsroom in the world.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  147. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @anonymous

    Huh? She’s smoking hot
     
    What have you been smoking?

    Some pretty bad shit.

    She may not be aging well – the stress from the last 7 years sure hasn’t helped – but I don’t think many of the male commenters here would turn down a date.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous
    Some of the DailyMail pics don't look very good. Without makeup fairly average, sort of plain. Shows you what makeup can do. They've had stories with pics of celebrities with and without makeup; big difference.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  148. Art Deco says: • Website
    @HA
    "I’m disappointed that Ann Coulter blames Knox,..."

    Coulter's article repeated the claim that Knox and her boyfriend had bought a bottle of bleach after the murders, presumably to clean up things. When I read that, I, too, assumed Knox was guilty, and I don't blame Coulter for thinking the same.

    However, the bleach purchase never happened. Yes, Coulter should revise her accusations in light of that debunking, but between Knox's PR wing and Italian rumor mills, there's a lot of misinformation floating around, some of it due to Knox and Sollecito themselves, so that anyone who pretends that this "discredits just about everything [Coulter] ever said" needs to back off the caffeine or something.

    some of it due to Knox and Sollecito themselves, so that anyone who pretends that this “discredits just about everything [Coulter] ever said” needs to back off the caffeine or something.

    Nope. The case was a manure sandwich from the beginning. Rudy Guede’s fingerprints and DNA were readily located at multiple loci in Kercher’s bedroom and in the bathroom and his account of his activities almost comically improvised. Yet, somehow, Sollecito and Knox clean up the scene so deftly and thoroughly that the only indication of RS presence is a minute quantity of DNA on a bra clasp (a clasp left uncollected for seven weeks in a room in which Sollecito had entered). And isn’t it interesting how it was impossible to establish a timeline of their activities online because, oopsy daisy, the police destroyed Sollecito’s hard drive. Coulter has actually made reference to supposed biological material from Kercher on the tip of one of Sollecito’s kitchen knives (a forensic finding later discredited).

    So, Ann Coulter’s all in on the following: two people who met three weeks ago (neither of whom have any history of criminal acts beyond smoking dope) team up with a 3d person no one can demonstrate they’d ever met before for some sort of sexual orgy which then goes awry. Their accomplice kills Meredith Kercher, craps in her toilet, steals money from her purse, and flees the scene while Knox and Sollecito stage a break in and apply their magical bleach which washes away almost all evidence of Sollecito’s presence while leaving Guede’s intact.

    Ann Coulter’s evidence for that is that two confused young people cannot recall securely the sequence of events in their activities over a 12 hour period and tell conflicting stories which vary with the telling.

    Read More
    • Replies: @HA
    "Coulter has actually made reference to supposed biological material from Kercher on the tip of one of Sollecito’s kitchen knives (a forensic finding later discredited)."

    Whether it was discredited depends on whether you believe the pathologists who are paid by the prosecution, or the experts paid by the defense. As convinced as you apparently are, your failure to take into account that ambiguity only serves to cast suspicion on your own objectivity.


    Ann Coulter’s evidence for that is that two confused young people cannot recall securely the sequence of events in their activities over a 12 hour period and tell conflicting stories which vary with the telling.

    Hold on there: cannot recall securely? That's how you would describe what went down? Again, all you're doing is tearing your own credibility to shreds. According to the Wiki I linked to:


    "...The following day, 4 November, the Italian flatmates and Knox were summoned for further questioning. To check whether any knives were missing, they were taken to the upper flat, where Knox broke down crying and shaking...Knox was asked into the Flying Squad offices where, so she was told, Sollecito's interview was about to finish.... According to the police,..Knox was told that Sollecito, in another interview room, was no longer saying Knox had been with him all night, but was now maintaining she had left him at 9 pm to go to Le Chic, and had not returned to his apartment until 1 am...Giobbi, watching the interview from a control room, later said he heard Knox scream....Chief Detective Inspector Rita Ficarra told the trial that Knox started to cry when asked about activity on her mobile phone before it was switched off on the night of the murder...The last activity on Knox's phone on the night of the murder was a text to Le Chic's owner, Lumumba...Knox had deleted Lumumba's text from the memory of the phone. She told detectives she did not remember replying to it.The detectives looked through the phone's messages and found that Knox had replied....The interrogators showed Knox her reply to Lumumba on the display of her mobile.Anna Donnino, an interpreter for the Perugia police, told the trial that Knox had an "emotional shock" on being shown her text to Lumumba, and said: "It's him, he did it, I can feel it."

    According to the detectives, Knox told them she had met Lumumba at the basketball court at 8:30 pm, before going with him to Via della Pergola 7 where Lumumba had committed the murder, thereby implicating herself as his accomplice. Knox signed a statement, written by the police in official Italian, which said: "I have a hard time remembering those moments but Patrick had sex with Meredith, with whom he was infatuated, but I cannot remember clearly whether he threatened Meredith first. I remember confusedly that he killed her." She told Italian interrogators that she had covered her ears to drown out Kercher's screams.
     

    This was all in between being served tea and a meal. Claims that she was brutalized and beaten have likewise dissipated into thin air. In any case, you characterize that merely as "two confused young people not being able recall securely" a sequence of events? Yeah, good luck pushing that. If Coulter's credibility needs to be called into question as the result of her bias in this matter, maybe she's not the only one of whom that can be said.

    As for me, I stand by what I have already written: that the evidence against Knox -- apart from her complete lack of credibility -- does not come close to a guilty verdict, especially considering the absence of any motive. That being said, to Coulter or anyone else who finds her flaky behavior indicative of something more sinister than merely being "confused", I will nonetheless concede that their suspicions are, at the least, understandable.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  149. anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Anonymous
    Some pretty bad shit.

    She may not be aging well - the stress from the last 7 years sure hasn't helped - but I don't think many of the male commenters here would turn down a date.

    Some of the DailyMail pics don’t look very good. Without makeup fairly average, sort of plain. Shows you what makeup can do. They’ve had stories with pics of celebrities with and without makeup; big difference.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  150. HA says:
    @greenstalk

    As the article also notes, there was some suspicious DNA evidence tied to both Knox and Sollecito
     
    The article is dishonest bullshit. It's description of the evidence is completely wrong.

    Knox’s DNA was found on the handle of the murder weapon – a knife belonging to Sollecito – and Kercher’s was found on the blade.

    No trace of Kercher’s DNA was found on that knife, which was not the murder weapon. It's hardly a surprise that Knox's DNA was on the handle of a knife found in her boyfriends house, a house she spent a good deal of time in.

    “No trace of Kercher’s DNA was found on that knife, which was not the murder weapon. It’s hardly a surprise that Knox’s DNA was on the handle of a knife found in her boyfriends house, a house she spent a good deal of time in.”

    The comments in the article push the knife questions back and forth as well. If you’re clear on the fact that it wasn’t the murder weapon, and that the DNA evidence there was innocently placed (or wasn’t there to begin with), that’s fine. But others aren’t, and as shady as Salon is, it’s still probably better than “some guy in a comment told me it was nonsense and other people agreed”.

    Moreover, there’s much more in that article that puts Knox’s credibility in doubt, and no one seems to be disputing that. And if you claim that one wrong claim can discredit everything else, then that likewise means there is really not much reason for giving Knox any credibility either. Ultimately, that has much to do with why she endured everything she endured, but like I said, I see no proof beyond a reasonable doubt as to why she would be considered guilty of the murder.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  151. Jack D says:
    @No name
    Exactly. That's all I was trying to say. It's obvious that the dna evidence against her was bogus and I'm not sure why the Italian prosecutors tried to say that she actually committed the crime instead of just being an accomplice. I don't think Sollecito had anything to do with it at all.

    I'm surprised, though I shouldn't be, that everyone here believes that police departments all over the world and engaged in a massive conspiracy to lock up innocent people by getting false confessions from everyone. If that were true, wouldn't that mean most of the blacks in prison in America are innocent, and wouldn't that mean that all the talk on here about black criminality is wrong? And you're using media reports to back up your story, a media that's constantly attacked on this site as being completely untrustworthy. You're arguing with your enemies on this one and using their reporting to do it. Ironic.

    In my experience, the police want to clear their open case files any way that they can. If they can get you to confess to every unsolved case in their book, they would love nothing more. As far as the are concerned, if they trick you into confessing, it’s probably because you are guilty anyway. They are not looking for FALSE confessions, they are looking for confessions period and they assume that they are true. If you are dumb enough to confess to something that you didn’t actually do, that’s your problem now, not theirs.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  152. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    Notice how a sweeping Supreme Court ruling doesn’t phase the Knox haters.

    Instead of a dimwit jury it was a bench of bigtime justices who looked at the evidence and then told the prosecution “bleep you.”

    Remember it was a sweeping decision because the Supremes could’ve ordered a retrial but the said “bleep you” to that also.

    Notice again please that these events simply do not register in the minds of the witch sniffers.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  153. Jack D says:
    @Art Deco
    My guess is that she and Sollecito set up Kercher to be raped by Guede and things went downhill from there.

    There is no indication at either she or Sollecito knew Rudy Guede. Sollecito hadn't met Knox until a few weeks earlier.

    According to the wiki, she had met Guede while visiting her downstair neighbors at least once, but in the sense that you drop by someone’s apartment and one of their friends/acquaintances are there – it has very little significance. Why would she set up her roommate to be raped/murdered by someone she barely knew? Why did Guede need her help? He was apparently capable of planning these crimes on his own. He had committed several other break-ins before he broke into the girls’ flat.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  154. Art Deco says: • Website
    @SPMoore8
    I completely agree. Anyone who is "outraged" by Amanda Knox' exoneration should be even more outraged that the person who indisputably raped and murdered the young woman is already on a form of parole, a mere seven years after the murder.

    This tells me that a lot of the hatred of Amanda Knox is purely visceral and fueled by who knows what, but certainly not the facts of the case. I mean, the best one can say about the evidence is that Amanda was part of a conspiracy, and "did something" either before or after the murder, since there is no DNA from her at the actual murder scene. But even then the penalty should not be a prison sentence that is three times the length of the actual murder. (Yes, I know the technicalities of Italian law but they are still ludicrous.)

    Since Guede's guilt in the rape/murder is undeniably greater than either Amanda or her then boyfriend (if not being exclusive), and he is already being allowed out, then continuing the attempt to jail the other two is absurd. (As if Amanda would have ever been extradited anyway.) I expect the Selene Nelsons of the world will continue to describe the massive conspiracy that has let a 21st century Lizzie Borden loose, but the prosecution's narrative has always sounded very Grassy Knoll to me.

    This tells me that a lot of the hatred of Amanda Knox is purely visceral and fueled by who knows what, but certainly not the facts of the case.

    What amazes you in these cases as portrayed in the media is that family members seem seldom if ever to have a perspective distinct from the public postures of the prosecutors. In The Innocent Man, paternal side relatives of the deceased Debra Carter were stomping around town uttering threats against the exonerated defendants and complaints against anyone who would associate with their families after the DNA evidence had discredited the prosecution’s case against the two men who’d spent 11 years in prison for nothing. In for a dime, in for a dollar.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack D
    I can understand this. The families have lost a loved one. They have been told by an authority figure for years that a certain person was responsible. That person has been convicted by a jury. Often the families develop bonds with the prosecutor. Then one day the verdict is reversed. Are they likely to conclude that their friend the prosecutor has been wrong/ lying to them all along or are they going to think that the defendant got himself some tricky lawyers and has gotten off on a technicality but is still as guilty as hell?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  155. Jack D says:
    @Alfa158
    A few years back there was a YouTube video by a law professor giving a real life example of why that is correct.
    A very experienced criminal defense attorney had gotten into a spirited argument in a court hallway with a female assistant DA. Shortly afterward the attorney was approached by a police detective who told him that the ADA was going to file a criminal complaint that he had grabbed her by the shoulders during the argument and shaken her, so could the attorney give his side of the story and clear this all up. The attorney knew all the ways that suspects will say dumb things, giving ambiguous answers, talking too much, volunteering extra detail etc., so he figured he could safely talk to the cop alone without incriminating himself.
    He proceeded to give a perfect statement that it was all false, they had talked but there was no physical contact whatsoever, period, end of discussion.
    The defense attorney was indicted. At the trial the ADA repeated her accusations, the attorney testified again that there was no contact. The detective was asked to read from his notes on his conversation with the defendant. The detective testified that the defendant told him that he had grabbed the victim by her shoulders but that he was only kidding around, and never shook her. The attorney was convicted of felony assault.
    The moral of the story being that even if your story is perfect, you have to have a lawyer present if for no other reason to back up what you actually said and keep the police from lying about it.

    Even better, never speak to the police at all. You have a 5th Amendment right not to incriminate yourself. Even if you have committed no underlying crime, you can, like Scooter Libby, be convicted for making false statement to an officer. If you make NO statement, you cannot be convicted of making a false statement. Maybe there are instances where your counsel might direct you to speak to the police in his or her presence and you should follow their advice (after questioning them on it) but in general you will rarely go wrong by NOT talking to the cops. You are NOT going to talk your way out of an arrest if they think that they have evidence against you already, but the chances of talking your way IN to an arrest are good. You don’t have to be an A-hole and tell the cops to go F themselves. You can do as the late David Carr did – whenever the police would ask him a question (e.g. “Where did you get those drugs?”) he would politely say to them, “I’m sorry officer, I can’t help you with that.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous

    Even better, never speak to the police at all
     
    Note that on all these cop and crime shows whenever someone wants a lawyer they use the phrase "lawyer up", implying someone is guilty because they "lawyer up". They promote the idea that innocent people don't need a lawyer because cops always do the right thing.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  156. Jack D says:
    @Art Deco
    This tells me that a lot of the hatred of Amanda Knox is purely visceral and fueled by who knows what, but certainly not the facts of the case.

    What amazes you in these cases as portrayed in the media is that family members seem seldom if ever to have a perspective distinct from the public postures of the prosecutors. In The Innocent Man, paternal side relatives of the deceased Debra Carter were stomping around town uttering threats against the exonerated defendants and complaints against anyone who would associate with their families after the DNA evidence had discredited the prosecution's case against the two men who'd spent 11 years in prison for nothing. In for a dime, in for a dollar.

    I can understand this. The families have lost a loved one. They have been told by an authority figure for years that a certain person was responsible. That person has been convicted by a jury. Often the families develop bonds with the prosecutor. Then one day the verdict is reversed. Are they likely to conclude that their friend the prosecutor has been wrong/ lying to them all along or are they going to think that the defendant got himself some tricky lawyers and has gotten off on a technicality but is still as guilty as hell?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art Deco
    In that particular case, the relatives of the deceased were motivated by pure cussedness and stupidity. Biological material found on the site did not match the defendants. It matched the man eventually found to have killed her (who had also been the last person seen with her, a datum ignored by state and local police). (The case had originally been won on bogus forensic evidence; the local prosecutor made use of perjured testimony from a crooked technician at the state crime lab who contended, in a finding the other technicians who'd looked at the evidence would not sign on to, that hairs found on the site matched the original defendants in their color and texture). One oddity of that case was that the mother of the deceased had always been perturbed by the original verdicts and not persuaded that the police had found her daughter's killer. That case was similar to the Knox case in several respects. One was that the defendants were (a) implausible and (b) wildly implausible as the perpetrators of a rape/murder of a stranger. One was (at the time of the murder) a 29 year old divorced town drunk who lived with his mother and had a string of citations for public drunkenness and disorderly conduct in his past, but no serious crime. The other was a 35 year old widowed schoolteacher with a child and no criminal record. The two were 3d drawer friends who spent time together infrequently; local authorities were given receipts which corroborated the account of one defendant's mother as to where he had been the night of the murder, and no witnesses who had been at the bar where the deceased worked reported seeing the man there even though he was a loud and well-known local figure among pub-crawlers. The authorities had no evidence the other defendant had ever set foot in the bar where the deceased worked.

    I don't think it's too much to expect the father of the deceased to know how the world works well enough to be skeptical that a schoolteacher approaching middle age without a rap sheet would sexually assault and murder a cocktail waitress for cheap thrills, but evidently it is too much.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  157. HA says:
    @greenstalk

    As the article also notes, there was some suspicious DNA evidence tied to both Knox and Sollecito
     
    The article is dishonest bullshit. It's description of the evidence is completely wrong.

    Knox’s DNA was found on the handle of the murder weapon – a knife belonging to Sollecito – and Kercher’s was found on the blade.

    No trace of Kercher’s DNA was found on that knife, which was not the murder weapon. It's hardly a surprise that Knox's DNA was on the handle of a knife found in her boyfriends house, a house she spent a good deal of time in.

    Regarding the knife, here’s the Wiki take:

    The three prosecution pathologists said a knife found in Sollecito’s kitchen, which the prosecution said was the murder weapon, was compatible with the most serious of the neck wounds, but not other ones.[29]…The defence teams called forensic pathologists…[who] agreed that a single knife with a blade a little over 3 inches long had inflicted all the cuts suffered by Kercher, and not the much larger knife found in Sollecito’s kitchen.

    So, claiming the knife was or wasn’t used in the murder comes down to which set of conflicting experts one believes, which in turn means that making that the fulcrum over which Knox’s guilt or innocence pivots is not going to lead to anything rock-solid. And again, none of that addresses the numerous other shady things Knox did that led to her arrest, and the Wiki details a good deal of that, so people can read it for themselves. Yes, it’s Wiki, but that’s a step up from Salon.

    Was she guilty of murder? No. But as to why so many people thought she was lying, or had something to hide, I can certainly understand.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Meredith_Kercher

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  158. anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Jack D
    Even better, never speak to the police at all. You have a 5th Amendment right not to incriminate yourself. Even if you have committed no underlying crime, you can, like Scooter Libby, be convicted for making false statement to an officer. If you make NO statement, you cannot be convicted of making a false statement. Maybe there are instances where your counsel might direct you to speak to the police in his or her presence and you should follow their advice (after questioning them on it) but in general you will rarely go wrong by NOT talking to the cops. You are NOT going to talk your way out of an arrest if they think that they have evidence against you already, but the chances of talking your way IN to an arrest are good. You don't have to be an A-hole and tell the cops to go F themselves. You can do as the late David Carr did - whenever the police would ask him a question (e.g. "Where did you get those drugs?") he would politely say to them, "I'm sorry officer, I can't help you with that."

    Even better, never speak to the police at all

    Note that on all these cop and crime shows whenever someone wants a lawyer they use the phrase “lawyer up”, implying someone is guilty because they “lawyer up”. They promote the idea that innocent people don’t need a lawyer because cops always do the right thing.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  159. @Svigor
    More oppression of minorities:

    http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/taraji-p-henson-apologizes-glendale-785010

    The cops were supremely lenient with her son, and this bitch throws them under the bus. Until the irrefutable evidence comes out showing how full of shit she is.


    She went on to explain that her son was also racially profiled by Glendale police. "My child has been racially profiled. He was in Glendale, California and did exactly everything the cops told him to do, including letting them illegally search his car,” Henson said. “It was bogus because they didn’t give him the ticket for what he was pulled over for.”
     
    LOL. I wonder how many no-nonsense legal guides have been written explicitly for typical black Americans. One supposes there are many. At this point, you'd think charities would distribute them to blacks for free. Regardless, simple legal concepts like "a search consented to is a legal one" and "police sometimes let you go even when they don't have to" (ever heard of a warning, dumbass?) simply do not penetrate into black skulls.

    The apology came hours after a video obtained by the Los Angeles Times showed the encounter between Henson's son and Glendale police, disproving that police racially profiled him.
     
    Lefties don't seem to be clamoring for blanket surveillance coverage/recording of police while they're on duty, do they? Gee, I wonder if that's because they know that, as in this situation, the evidence will, more often than not, exonerate the cops and show the "oppressed" to be full of shit?

    The policeman did not ticket Marcell Johnson for a traffic violation, because Eric Holder’s Justice Department will “dismantle” any police department that tickets African-Americans for traffic violations.

    That is a perk that African-Americans will enjoy all throughout the USA through at least 2016 because they vote 97% for the Democratic Party.

    Taraji Henson showed a lot of class for apologizing so contritely and publicly.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  160. Ron Unz says:
    @Bill B.
    In this case I disagree: I think Knox is guilty.

    1 We know conclusively there were multiple murderers: Kircher was killed upright; she was tortured with scores of knife cuts but screamed only once; no defensive wounds were found on anybody; she was a strong girl who would have fought if she could have; the attack lasted for some time; Kircher had bruises on her arms and jaw suggestive of being held and muzzled.

    2 When Guede left the murder scene he walked his bloody footprints straight out of the house (footprints in red here).

    http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/images/thumb/1/19/Luminolandmixeddna.jpg/280px-Luminolandmixeddna.jpg

    So who subsequently faked the break-in? There has been not a scintilla of evidence showing any fourth or fifth person to have been present aside from the three suspects. Knox and her boyfriend had extremely strong reasons to lead the police away from the murder being an inside job since only Knox and the victim were, of all eight house residents, in town on an Italian bank holiday.

    3 Knox had motive. Kircher had told her friends that Knox had almost certainly stolen her rent money; she had also rebuffed Knox's attempts to joint her activities over the bank holiday.

    4 The subsequent behaviour of Knox and her boyfriend was bizarre in the extreme if they were innocent. (And leaving aside Knox's extraordinarily callous response to a very brutal murder of the girl who had the room next to her's.)

    Making emergency calls to the police after returning to the house after two policemen had just arrived to return Kircher's stolen phones (presumably to maintain an alibi). Knox lying about Kircher always keeping her door locked (presumably to delay discovery of the body). Knox's intimate knowledge of Kircher's murder when this had not been disclosed by investigators. Bloody footprints that fitted Knox and her boyfriend (as they presumably attempted to clean up the murder scene).

    Knox and her boyfriends multiple lies (as shown by computer and phone records) as they tried to supply alibis for each other.

    5 Guede is an immoral loser who should never have been permitted to stay in Italy when his father returned to Africa and who abused the trust of a rich, liberal family who tried to help him. But Knox was a thrill-seeker and Sollecito a knife obsessive.

    DO read this well-written site on the case:

    http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Myths_debunked

    P.S. I have no connection with this case.
    P.P.S. Guede got the shockingly inappropriate sentence of 16 years because his original maximum sentences of 30 years was cut to the same level as Knox's 25 years then automatically reduced by a third because Guede agreed to a fast-track trial. Hence 16 years. Italy does not do plea deals.

    TIP FOR PARENTS: If your daughter is doing a year abroad like this make sure she is staying with people who are also working towards exams or in a proper job. Knox was on casual language study.

    Amanda Knox Acquitted of 2007 Murder by Italy’s Highest Court.

    It turns out that the real killer was … the black street criminal.

    Well, if legal verdicts are so conclusive, should OJ get his good name back?

    Glancing over the thread, I’d guess I’ve followed this case about 95% less than most of the conflicting commenters, but I do recall that Knox’s behavior and statements during the investigation struck me as very odd, sufficiently odd that I thought there was at least a 50-50 chance she was involved in the murder. Since the Italian courts have now both convicted and acquitted her several separate times, I can’t see how more more acquittal makes much of a difference.

    Another factor was that if this court had ruled against her, wouldn’t Italy have had to try to get her extradicted back? And since America wouldn’t have complied, the Italian government would have looked ridiculous, an embarrassment that the ruling averted.

    To my eye, it looks like the partisans in this thread are lining up about 3-to-1 in Knox’s favor. Since they know the details in-and-out while I don’t, I’m curious how they despond to the reasonable points made by “Bill B” above, some of which I think I’d also read elsewhere in the past.

    Read More
    • Replies: @D. K.
    The fact that the prosecutors came up with two totally different theories for their two successful prosecutions, in the lower courts, should give one some pause, should it not, Mr. Unz?

    The fact that the only forensic evidence alleged to tie the two defendants to the crime, during their first trial, was totally debunked before the second trial, by the government's own crime laboratory, should do likewise, should it not, Mr. Unz?

    The fact that Rudy Guede explicitly stated that Amanda Knox was not present in her own apartment, that night, and only testified later against Knox and her Italian boyfriend after Guede himself-- already convicted and sentenced to 30 years for his vicious rape and murder of Meredith Kercher-- had amazingly had his sentence reduced to a mere 14 years-- barely half of those for Knox and her boyfriend-- despite the fact that only his DNA was found in, on and near the victim, along with his bloody handprints and footprints, should give one even more pause, should it not, Mr. Unz?

    For the record, Mr. Unz, when is the last time that you or anyone whom you know committed such a violent and bloody crime as what was done to Meredith Kercher, yet were able to escape the scene without leaving any forensic evidence of your crime, while someone else's DNA and bloody prints were all around the room (along with unflushed feces, in the bathroom, bearing the same person's DNA)?

    In the words of the King of Siam: "'Tis a puzzlement!"
    , @SPMoore8
    My own take came very late, since I never paid any attention to the case in 2007 or 2008. I had a co-worker who was virulently in Amanda's favor (since deceased) and I remember that advocacy struck me. I didn't learn anything about the case until a year ago January when the Italian court reinstated the convictions. By then, Amanda had already been in the states for 3 years.

    The bullet points that on the surface seem persuasive of "something" are actually inferences, in most cases they are not "facts".

    The points that lead me to think that Amanda and Raffaele (AK and RS) are probably innocent could be summarized this way:

    1. The timeline. AK and RS were both arrested for the murder within a few days. On the other hand, we now know that Rudy Guede (RG) raped and murdered the victim, however, he wasn't arrested until a month later, after fleeing to Germany. So this looks right away like a "facts fitting theory" scenario.

    2. RG's guilt is conclusive, based on the forensic evidence (blood, fingerprints, DNA) especially in the room where the Meredith Kercher (MK) was killed. By contrast, there is no DNA evidence of AK in the room, and only one (questionable) trace of RS DNA on a bra clasp that was found on the floor and was processed some time after the killing. Based on the way trace evidence and DNA evidence is supposed to work, I think it is very unlikely that AK or RS were in the murder room, which means, at best, that they were somehow accomplices in the murder (including accessories before or after the fact.)

    3. Occam's Razor. I know this is invoked frequently, but in this case it does seem appropriate. We have a murder scene, we have a dead body, we have plenty of forensic evidence at the murder scene, and it all points to RG. So, query, why are we even talking about AK and RS? Because they were arrested almost immediately and the prosecution was convinced that they were somehow involved. That is the ultimate source for all the inferences cited up top.

    Put another way, the simplest explanation is that RG broke in, raped Meredith, murdered her, stole her money, and then skipped town. Except for the first point, there's no question that the rest is what happened. The only question left is the extent to which AK or RS were involved in some satanic "Halloween" or Samhain ritual (don't blame me, that was the prosecutor's idea.)

    I don't want to absolve AK or RS from acting strangely, and I have no desire to devote that much energy to the case, but (a) I am convinced that the evidence never rose above a "reasonable doubt" threshold, and (b) I don't think you can convict someone of murder and sentence them to what is in practical terms three times longer than the actual killer and expect to be taken seriously.

    I've never heard a coherent counter-explanation for why AK or RS were, at best, accomplices to the murder of MK. I'd be willing to give it a listen.
    , @Wilkey
    I won't pretend to be an expert on the case, but all the "evidence" the Keystone Kops have to tie Knox to the krime is that they can't posit a way that Guede could have committed the crime on his own based on the evidence they have, so Knox and Sollecito must have been in on it...because.

    It reminds me of the case of the West Memphis Three, where three young boys were murdered, so some overzealous prosecutors railroad three troubled but innocent young men and posit a ridiculous fantasy - occult sacrifice in one case, sex games in the other - round up a few "witnesses" of dubious credibility, and ignore all evidence to the contrary, and convict them despite the fact that none of the material evidence they actually have points to the accused.

    The Robin Hood Hills murders were committed by a brutal step-father, not three dumb teenagers committing an occult sacrifice. Meredith Kercher was murdered by an African immigrant burglarizing her home, not an African plus two SWPL college grads playing an S&M game.

    , @Sean
    The hearings have been part of a single process. Italian prosecutors and judiciary are completely independent of government, and actually enjoy embarrassing them. In 1999 Giulio Andreotti the most influential statesman in the country was tried for ordering the murder of a journalist, the charges were brought by prosecutors in Perugia (same place as Knox). He was acquitted but the Supreme court ordered a retrial . In Britain or America a jury verdict of not guilty is final, but the prosecution can appeal an acquittal in Italy . Anyway in 2002 he was convicted at the second trial in Perugia,. But then the same Supreme court flung the whole case out, definitively acquitting him in 2003. The only person who has ever been convicted (in the final sense attached to a 'conviction' in the Us) for murdering Kercher is Guede.

    Italian courts have to give a very long detailed written grounds for their verdict and anything the higher court does not like in the written explanation can be used to order it to be re-heard, they often do. The Hellmann court that freed Knox ruled there had been no break in and refused to order retesting of a discredited DNA evidence supposedly found on a knife so the Supreme court sent it back. The only possible shed of hard evidence against Knox was the DNA allegedly on the knife, but it was shown to be non-existent by retesting at the third trial. The Supreme court was satisfied and gave a strong not guilty, thereby acting with Knox just as it had with Andreotti: definitive acquittal because there was no longer a case to answer.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_L%27Aquila_earthquake

    Italy convicted earthquake scientists of manslaughter then acquitted them

    , @Sean
    "Well, if legal verdicts are so conclusive, should OJ get his good name back?"

    OJ was found not guilty in a far weaker sense (the corollary of guilty verdicts in the US having to meet a far higher standard of proof than in Italy), and he went on to lose a civil case. The Italian Supreme Court could have sent Knox back for a retrial if there was any lingering suspicion, but it gave a judgement that is a complete exoneration. It is the final verdict in the case for the entire legal system, including civil courts.
    , @AnotherDad
    Well, if legal verdicts are so conclusive, should OJ get his good name back?

    Hmm ... after 20 years OJ can finally rest easy. The "real killer" is ... Amanda Knox.
    , @AnotherDad
    Well, if legal verdicts are so conclusive, should OJ get his good name back?

    More seriously, Ron, the difference between OJ and Amanda Knox is simply ... the evidence.

    The evidence against OJ was pretty much rock solid--the DNA on socks (at his house) and gloves (her house and his), blood drops both places, hair, fibers (Bronco carpet), all the witnesses on the Bronco (missing at his house--limo driver-- seen near the scene), Kato Kaelin, etc. Plus a decent theory of the crime--history of spousal abuse, wife separated, filed for divorce. Plus OJ running.

    With Amanda Knox we have ... uh ... um ... uh ... nothing. Basically we have that Amanda and Meridith had some sort of roommate dispute. And Amanda didn't behave as people wanted her to. And in questioning several days in--in what she claimed was a "how could it have happened" scenario she implicated Patrick Lumumba--a black guy who was hitting on Meredith. That's it. The physical evidence--there's a violent rape-murder crime scene in Meredith Kercher's room--with lots of DNA from Rudy Guede, but nothing from Amanda Knox or Raffaele Sollecito. Nothing. By all appearances Amanda Knox was basically *never* in Kercher's room--and certainly not during this violent attack. And there is simply no credible theory of the crime--which is why the bizarre nonsense is offered up.

    If you want an answer to BillB's post. The answer is ... it's junk.

    I spent 15 or 20 reading the link he's peddling, searching for anything really meaty, consequential. Basically their big claim is the killings required someone to restrain Meredith. (This is more of this same sort of nonsense about male\female strength differential. Razib had a post about it with some actual stats a couple weeks back. "Butt kicking babes" ... that's Hollywood. Women really are the weaker sex. Furthermore under physical threat women are much more likely to submit--not unreasonably!--to try and save themselves.) So these folks have decided Amanda was in there--Kercher's room!--whacking away.


    No one would remain still and allow themselves to be repeatedly cut. Since we know that the attack happened with Meredith upright the only way to explain these light cuts is if Meredith was restrained from behind while someone else attacked her from the front. This was probably Rudy since his DNA was found on her jacket arm and on the backside of her bra strap. The bruising on Meredith's arms is from Rudy holding her from behind while either Amanda or Raffaele Sollecito|Raffaele]], or both attacked Meredith from the front.
     
    My question: then where's their DNA? In Meredith's room? And where is Meredith's DNA on them? Their clothes? Their bodies? They'd be covered in Kercher's blood. Did Knox and Sollecito don Ebola moon suits ... while leaving their new found best buddy Guede unprotected. Knowing, presumably, that in the very likely event Guede's DNA lands him in the slammer ... he testifies and they go down.

    They also try and downplay Guede's history. Hey he's a bit of lowlife ... but Sollecito (drugs) and Knox (some disturbing the peace type thingy) are no saints. Please. He'd done multiple breakins and had been caught just days before having broken into a nursery school packing a big knife.

    Bill also trots out the usual nonsense: The window is unreachable! No, it's actually quite reachable by an athletic young man. (And Guede had already done some 2nd story entry.) Furthermore if it was faked, it was not unreasonable for Guede to fake it, as he had befriended the guys downstairs and would likely come up in an investigation.

    It's all just ridiculous. The theory that is simple and matches the evidence is that Guede saw Meredith--or Amanda or both--and decided to break in and rape (her\them). And did so, and the rape--what's the MSM term of art--"went wrong".

    Is it *possible*? Unbeknownst to anyone Knox and Sollecito actually got to know Guede? And Amanda so hated Meredith and was venting and Guede volunteered to give her a good raping and after a couple hits of hash or something Amanda and Raffaele thought that sounded peachy and opened up Amanda's place--without anyone seeing them their--so Guede could get busy raping and chopping her up? While they--oops he was serious!--panicked and staged a phony break-in? Or something. (You can always dream up scenarios.)

    Possible, sure. Likelihood--pretty much zero. Evidence for--nonexistent.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  161. HA says:
    @Art Deco
    some of it due to Knox and Sollecito themselves, so that anyone who pretends that this “discredits just about everything [Coulter] ever said” needs to back off the caffeine or something.

    Nope. The case was a manure sandwich from the beginning. Rudy Guede's fingerprints and DNA were readily located at multiple loci in Kercher's bedroom and in the bathroom and his account of his activities almost comically improvised. Yet, somehow, Sollecito and Knox clean up the scene so deftly and thoroughly that the only indication of RS presence is a minute quantity of DNA on a bra clasp (a clasp left uncollected for seven weeks in a room in which Sollecito had entered). And isn't it interesting how it was impossible to establish a timeline of their activities online because, oopsy daisy, the police destroyed Sollecito's hard drive. Coulter has actually made reference to supposed biological material from Kercher on the tip of one of Sollecito's kitchen knives (a forensic finding later discredited).

    So, Ann Coulter's all in on the following: two people who met three weeks ago (neither of whom have any history of criminal acts beyond smoking dope) team up with a 3d person no one can demonstrate they'd ever met before for some sort of sexual orgy which then goes awry. Their accomplice kills Meredith Kercher, craps in her toilet, steals money from her purse, and flees the scene while Knox and Sollecito stage a break in and apply their magical bleach which washes away almost all evidence of Sollecito's presence while leaving Guede's intact.

    Ann Coulter's evidence for that is that two confused young people cannot recall securely the sequence of events in their activities over a 12 hour period and tell conflicting stories which vary with the telling.

    “Coulter has actually made reference to supposed biological material from Kercher on the tip of one of Sollecito’s kitchen knives (a forensic finding later discredited).”

    Whether it was discredited depends on whether you believe the pathologists who are paid by the prosecution, or the experts paid by the defense. As convinced as you apparently are, your failure to take into account that ambiguity only serves to cast suspicion on your own objectivity.

    Ann Coulter’s evidence for that is that two confused young people cannot recall securely the sequence of events in their activities over a 12 hour period and tell conflicting stories which vary with the telling.

    Hold on there: cannot recall securely? That’s how you would describe what went down? Again, all you’re doing is tearing your own credibility to shreds. According to the Wiki I linked to:

    “…The following day, 4 November, the Italian flatmates and Knox were summoned for further questioning. To check whether any knives were missing, they were taken to the upper flat, where Knox broke down crying and shaking…Knox was asked into the Flying Squad offices where, so she was told, Sollecito’s interview was about to finish…. According to the police,..Knox was told that Sollecito, in another interview room, was no longer saying Knox had been with him all night, but was now maintaining she had left him at 9 pm to go to Le Chic, and had not returned to his apartment until 1 am…Giobbi, watching the interview from a control room, later said he heard Knox scream….Chief Detective Inspector Rita Ficarra told the trial that Knox started to cry when asked about activity on her mobile phone before it was switched off on the night of the murder…The last activity on Knox’s phone on the night of the murder was a text to Le Chic’s owner, Lumumba…Knox had deleted Lumumba’s text from the memory of the phone. She told detectives she did not remember replying to it.The detectives looked through the phone’s messages and found that Knox had replied….The interrogators showed Knox her reply to Lumumba on the display of her mobile.Anna Donnino, an interpreter for the Perugia police, told the trial that Knox had an “emotional shock” on being shown her text to Lumumba, and said: “It’s him, he did it, I can feel it.”

    According to the detectives, Knox told them she had met Lumumba at the basketball court at 8:30 pm, before going with him to Via della Pergola 7 where Lumumba had committed the murder, thereby implicating herself as his accomplice. Knox signed a statement, written by the police in official Italian, which said: “I have a hard time remembering those moments but Patrick had sex with Meredith, with whom he was infatuated, but I cannot remember clearly whether he threatened Meredith first. I remember confusedly that he killed her.” She told Italian interrogators that she had covered her ears to drown out Kercher’s screams.

    This was all in between being served tea and a meal. Claims that she was brutalized and beaten have likewise dissipated into thin air. In any case, you characterize that merely as “two confused young people not being able recall securely” a sequence of events? Yeah, good luck pushing that. If Coulter’s credibility needs to be called into question as the result of her bias in this matter, maybe she’s not the only one of whom that can be said.

    As for me, I stand by what I have already written: that the evidence against Knox — apart from her complete lack of credibility — does not come close to a guilty verdict, especially considering the absence of any motive. That being said, to Coulter or anyone else who finds her flaky behavior indicative of something more sinister than merely being “confused”, I will nonetheless concede that their suspicions are, at the least, understandable.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art Deco
    That being said, to Coulter or anyone else who finds her flaky behavior indicative of something more sinister than merely being “confused”, I will nonetheless concede that their suspicions are, at the least, understandable.

    "Understandable suspicions" does not describe Coulter's contentions in this case. Whatever you suspect, you're positing three perpetrators, two of them foreign to the site. One of these two leaves ample biological material and one leaves almost none. The minute quantity detected re one defendant is in a mishandled sample. Technicians employed by the investigatory authorities managed to destroy potentially exculpatory evidence on one defendant's computer hard drive. An ordinary person would tend to regard the contentions of technicians in that apparat with greater skepticism than you ordinarily would, notably when their findings are cogently disputed and (re Sollecito's kitchen knives) never rose to the degree of certainty you find with conventional DNA testing. The forensic "evidence" against them is worthless, the police behaved incompetently or maliciously (take your pick) in handling other evidence, the accused have no discernible motives, the accused have no history of criminal conduct, and there is no evidence of extant social relationships encompassing all three supposed perpetrators. But you fancy Coulter is a reasonable person for thinking these two guilty. You banging Coulter?

    , @D. K.
    No, the knife evidence was not merely discounted by a defense witness; it was discounted by the independent DNA experts appointed by the appeals court itself:

    http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/TheKnife.html

    As for your Wiki excerpt, it is all hostile claims by the Italian authorities-- none of which was recorded, at the time, for us to judge independently the veracity of their claims of what happened in their interrogation rooms. You apparently trust the police and prosecutors-- even those in a notoriously corrupt society, by First World standards-- to tell the truth; I, as a former attorney and psychological legal consultant, do not. Ms. Knox was presented with a "confession" written in a language that she had only just begun to learn, and was coerced into signing it. I take that piece of paper for exactly what it is worth: "NIENTE!"

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  162. D. K. says:
    @Kylie
    Durst is fascinating.

    When I read about his arrest, I had to rewatch "All Good Things", a very thinly disguised account of the disappearance of his wife and the murder and dismemberment of his neighbor. Ryan Gosling, who often plays a sensitive but manly type, was really chilling as "David Marks" (Robert Durst).

    I almost picked that up at the library, the other day, but they charge a buck for DVDs, and I had no money on me. I noticed on the DVD cover that Roger Ebert had proclaimed it one of the best movies of the year (2010), which surprised me. I definitely hope to watch it soon.

    I (unsurprisingly) believe that Robert Durst murdered his friend of thirty-five years, Susan Berman. Whether that was because she was extorting him, or just because he was unwilling to risk that she might tell D.A. Jeanine Pirro’s investigators anything at all incriminating, I do not know. Regardless, as an American and as a former officer of the court, I believe in the adversarial system– meaning that the L.A. D.A. needs to prove the case in court, beyond a reasonable doubt, based only on the admitted evidence, to a jury that has sworn to do its duty, presuming the innocence of the defendant. My individual beliefs about the truth of the matter, or the character of the defendant, are all beside the point. I believe that it is a very defensible case, on those terms, unless the L.A. D.A. has something more on Durst than what we now know. (As for that incriminating note to the “Beverley [sic] Hills Police” that was postmarked on December 23, 2000, I have a quite-plausible defense for that piece of evidence, in particular.)

    As for Robert Durst’s unfortunate first wife, the former Kathleen McCormack, I (unsurprisingly) believe that he killed her, on Sunday evening, January 31, 1982. I also believe that Susan Berman was the one who called the medical school, the following day, pretending to be Kathie Durst, and that Ms. Berman was privy to the fact that Mrs. Durst was dead already. Whether Bob Durst killed his wife intentionally or accidentally, during the course of yet another argument that got out of hand, I do not know. Whether he ever told Ms. Berman the truth about how Kathie Durst died, I do not know. I believe it very likely, though, that Bob dismembered Kathie’s body, as he later would Morris Black’s, and then dumped it near Ship Bottom, New Jersey, on Tuesday, February 2, 1982. Whether he disposed of it on land or at sea, I do not know. I do not believe that he ever will talk, in that regard; so, I do not believe that the McCormack family, and Kathie Durst’s very loyal friends, ever will get the closure that they are hoping for, now, even if Robert Durst is convicted in L.A. for Susan Berman’s murder.

    As for Robert Durst’s own story about the Morris Black slaying, in September 2001, it was laughable on the face of it. How did Morris Black enter Durst’s apartment? Are we to believe that this paranoid man, hiding out from the New York authorities, with a gun to protect him from Jeanine Pirro’s Arab bloodlust for his Jewish hide, left his apartment unlocked, and his guns lying out in the open for Morris Black to get his hands on, while Durst was out of the boarding house, after Black had supposedly been ordered never to step foot in the place again, because he had allegedly attempted to shoot his eviction notice? Are we to believe that there was a bullet hole in the wall, nearly six feet up, because Morris Black had shot at his eviction notice and missed? Are we to believe that someone other than Robert Durst retrieved the head of Morris Black, after his body parts had washed back ashore, and has been holding on to it, ever since, without coming forward with the most crucial piece of forensic evidence, in a local case that was a national sensation? Most tellingly, are we to take the word of the man who dismembered and disposed of Morris Black’s body parts that only one accidental shot was fired, that fateful night, when one of Robert Durst’s neighbors testified under oath that she had heard two shots, while no one, other than Durst himself, testified to hearing a shot, on the earlier occasion, when Morris Black supposedly shot amiss at his own eviction notice, while in Robert Durst’s apartment? The size of what that jury swallowed was just amazing!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art Deco
    That’s how you would describe what went down? Again, all you’re doing is tearing your own credibility to shreds. According to the Wiki I linked to:

    Cute.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  163. D. K. says:
    @Ron Unz


    Amanda Knox Acquitted of 2007 Murder by Italy’s Highest Court.
     
    It turns out that the real killer was … the black street criminal.
     
    Well, if legal verdicts are so conclusive, should OJ get his good name back?

    Glancing over the thread, I'd guess I've followed this case about 95% less than most of the conflicting commenters, but I do recall that Knox's behavior and statements during the investigation struck me as very odd, sufficiently odd that I thought there was at least a 50-50 chance she was involved in the murder. Since the Italian courts have now both convicted and acquitted her several separate times, I can't see how more more acquittal makes much of a difference.

    Another factor was that if this court had ruled against her, wouldn't Italy have had to try to get her extradicted back? And since America wouldn't have complied, the Italian government would have looked ridiculous, an embarrassment that the ruling averted.

    To my eye, it looks like the partisans in this thread are lining up about 3-to-1 in Knox's favor. Since they know the details in-and-out while I don't, I'm curious how they despond to the reasonable points made by "Bill B" above, some of which I think I'd also read elsewhere in the past.

    The fact that the prosecutors came up with two totally different theories for their two successful prosecutions, in the lower courts, should give one some pause, should it not, Mr. Unz?

    The fact that the only forensic evidence alleged to tie the two defendants to the crime, during their first trial, was totally debunked before the second trial, by the government’s own crime laboratory, should do likewise, should it not, Mr. Unz?

    The fact that Rudy Guede explicitly stated that Amanda Knox was not present in her own apartment, that night, and only testified later against Knox and her Italian boyfriend after Guede himself– already convicted and sentenced to 30 years for his vicious rape and murder of Meredith Kercher– had amazingly had his sentence reduced to a mere 14 years– barely half of those for Knox and her boyfriend– despite the fact that only his DNA was found in, on and near the victim, along with his bloody handprints and footprints, should give one even more pause, should it not, Mr. Unz?

    For the record, Mr. Unz, when is the last time that you or anyone whom you know committed such a violent and bloody crime as what was done to Meredith Kercher, yet were able to escape the scene without leaving any forensic evidence of your crime, while someone else’s DNA and bloody prints were all around the room (along with unflushed feces, in the bathroom, bearing the same person’s DNA)?

    In the words of the King of Siam: “‘Tis a puzzlement!”

    Read More
    • Replies: @D. K.
    I should have said that Rudy Guede's original sentence was reduced, on appeal, from 30 years to 16 years-- not 14 years, as I wrote, above! Mea culpa!!
    , @Ron Unz
    Well, as I'd emphasized, I've probably followed this case much less than any other commenter here, which is why I decided to read the conflicting back-and-forth exchanges to get a sense of the evidence.

    I fully admit it would have been very odd for Knox to have involved herself in a brutal attack against Kercher, an attack that unexpectedly escalated to murder.

    But her alleged behavior and statements also seem very odd for a totally innocent person, as described here:

    http://www.unz.com/isteve/haven-monahan-john-doerr-and-now-amanda-knox-three-great-white-defendants-walk-in-one-week/#comment-910471

    That's why a casual observer such as myself continues to think it seems around 50-50 that she was somehow involved in the crime...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  164. HA says:

    “To my eye, it looks like the partisans in this thread are lining up about 3-to-1 in Knox’s favor. Since they know the details in-and-out while I don’t, I’m curious how they respond to the reasonable points made by “Bill B” above, some of which I think I’d also read elsewhere in the past.”

    I certainly don’t claim to know the details in-and-out, but I’ve seen enough to know that anyone who claims “it had to be this” or “no, it was certainly that” is basically saying they find the defense experts more or less credible than those of the prosecution. For the rest of us, a certain amount of ambiguity will always remain, but to take Bill B’s points in order:

    1. Multiple killlers? The prosecution concedes that the knife they presented as the murder weapon did not cause all the stab wounds, so they have to push the multiple killers angle, and conveniently, they note that Sollecito was a knife enthusiast. (Pretty much everyone admits that Guede was guilty.) The defense claims, no, one killer (with a smaller knife than the one the prosecution exhibited) could have done it all.

    2. Break-in? The defense claims that there was no faked break-in, just a misinterpretation of broken glass and such.

    3. Motive? The defense claims that the numerous gripes Kircher had against Knox (among them, a reticence to flush toilets) are too picayune to qualify as a murder motive. I’m not sure if anyone ever took the prosecutor’s more lurid explanations of what happened, and as a result, he sort of became his own Mark Fuhrman.

    4. Flaky behavior? I already dealt with this. Her behavior was indeed profoundly weird, but some combination of pot (and the consequent paranoia), survivor’s guilt (compounded by any friction she and Kircher had experienced) and adolescent angst (“adult” is not the first term anyone would apply to her, as opposed to, say, “airhead”) could also explain it, at least according to the defense. A lot of the other supposedly slam-dunk proofs that Knox knew things an innocent person could not have known become less solid upon closer inspection. (Besides, police can easily — sometimes unconsciously — guide someone into revealing things that they weren’t supposed to know, so I tend to discount things like that.)

    5. Guede. Again, I don’t think anyone claims he was an innocent. As for Knox’s thrill-seeking or Sollecito’s knife obsession, that’s another matter of which interpretation one goes with. To say any of what Knox and Sollecito were into rises past reasonable doubt in convicting someone of murder is, to my mind, pushing it, but I’m not claiming to have the last word.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bill B.
    To not be a fake break-in the intruder would have had to make an almost impossibly difficult climb, open shutters, smash through a difficult Italian-style window etc. all while the victim was in the house and in sight of the road and a facing car park.

    (Pictures of that challenging climb easily Googled.
    Excellent Google Streetview of the murder house; check Perugia with Piazza Grimana then move east 20 metres.)

    And the intruder would have to do this despite much easier options for entry elsewhere.

    The prosecution case was solid. The reason why the victim's family have not been "fair-minded" is that they are absolutely convinced Knox was involved. And you can see that that knowledge is torturing them.
    , @Sean

    2. Break-in? The defense claims that there was no faked break-in, just a misinterpretation of broken glass and such.
     
    That may well have been a mistake by the defence because even Marco Chiacchiera (the original chief investigator who opposed arresting Knox) was certain there had not been a genuine break in. If Guede faked a break in that would explain why it was done in his style. His motive for faking it would be if he had used some pretext to get Kercher (alone in the house) to open the door. Kercher did not speak Italian particularly well, she knew Guide was a acquaintance of her boyfriend, and Guede was plausible and not apparently menacing. Once he got in and realised she was alone his psychopathic tendencies came to the fore. But then he would know the police looking for the murderer would check on everyone known at the house so he faked a burglary.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  165. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Lurker

    the British press being far more suspicious of Knox, and like acting, they do it better than we do
     
    As far as most Brits are concerned they assume she is guilty. Because as we all 'know' the justice system is rigged to protect white, middle class people like AK.

    Half jewish/asians - like the victim - can never get a fair shake under the evil racist system.

    Most Brits are entirely unaware of the guy who was convicted or just how unlikely it is that AK is the killer and that he is innocent. Because Law & Order etc etc

    …. Complicated further in the UK by the fact that the victim’s father was a tabloid journalist, and that the victim’s family was repeatedly fed bogus information by the Italian police which convinced them of AK and RS’s complicity in the crime. This disproportionately biased the British press.

    I would also suggest that the victim’s family did not behave in an exemplary fashion, seeming disproportionately partial to the anti-Knox side. Rather than saying “we want to know the truth” they persistently used the language of “justice for Meredith” even when the facts changed. I don’t like to criticise people who have lost a child in awful circumstances, but they don’t seem to have been very fair-minded.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack D
    I think it's the same dynamic that you saw in things like the Kennedy assassination. What is the meaning of life if the life of their wonderful daughter can be ended by some lowlife street criminal? She's gone now in any case, but wasn't someone as wonderful as she worthy of being the victim of an equal or at least a conspiracy, rather than being brought down in such a mundane, stereotypical way by a petty thug? Didn't she deserve better? Now it sounds insane, but grief is not rational.

    Now in an insane way, it sort of worked. Meredith has now achieved immortality. She is a worldwide celebrity. If she was just another victim of a lowlife black street criminal, the story would have made a couple of column inches on the back pages of her local paper for a day and that would have been it.

    , @James Kabala
    It seems as if the family of a victim almost always supports the prosecution theory. Fortunately, in most cases the prosecution theory is actually what happened, but it seems to be a typical pattern even in doubtful cases. Art Deco noted this above as well.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  166. Bill B. says:
    @HA
    "To my eye, it looks like the partisans in this thread are lining up about 3-to-1 in Knox’s favor. Since they know the details in-and-out while I don’t, I’m curious how they respond to the reasonable points made by “Bill B” above, some of which I think I’d also read elsewhere in the past."

    I certainly don't claim to know the details in-and-out, but I've seen enough to know that anyone who claims "it had to be this" or "no, it was certainly that" is basically saying they find the defense experts more or less credible than those of the prosecution. For the rest of us, a certain amount of ambiguity will always remain, but to take Bill B's points in order:

    1. Multiple killlers? The prosecution concedes that the knife they presented as the murder weapon did not cause all the stab wounds, so they have to push the multiple killers angle, and conveniently, they note that Sollecito was a knife enthusiast. (Pretty much everyone admits that Guede was guilty.) The defense claims, no, one killer (with a smaller knife than the one the prosecution exhibited) could have done it all.

    2. Break-in? The defense claims that there was no faked break-in, just a misinterpretation of broken glass and such.

    3. Motive? The defense claims that the numerous gripes Kircher had against Knox (among them, a reticence to flush toilets) are too picayune to qualify as a murder motive. I'm not sure if anyone ever took the prosecutor's more lurid explanations of what happened, and as a result, he sort of became his own Mark Fuhrman.

    4. Flaky behavior? I already dealt with this. Her behavior was indeed profoundly weird, but some combination of pot (and the consequent paranoia), survivor's guilt (compounded by any friction she and Kircher had experienced) and adolescent angst ("adult" is not the first term anyone would apply to her, as opposed to, say, "airhead") could also explain it, at least according to the defense. A lot of the other supposedly slam-dunk proofs that Knox knew things an innocent person could not have known become less solid upon closer inspection. (Besides, police can easily -- sometimes unconsciously -- guide someone into revealing things that they weren't supposed to know, so I tend to discount things like that.)

    5. Guede. Again, I don't think anyone claims he was an innocent. As for Knox's thrill-seeking or Sollecito's knife obsession, that's another matter of which interpretation one goes with. To say any of what Knox and Sollecito were into rises past reasonable doubt in convicting someone of murder is, to my mind, pushing it, but I'm not claiming to have the last word.

    To not be a fake break-in the intruder would have had to make an almost impossibly difficult climb, open shutters, smash through a difficult Italian-style window etc. all while the victim was in the house and in sight of the road and a facing car park.

    (Pictures of that challenging climb easily Googled.
    Excellent Google Streetview of the murder house; check Perugia with Piazza Grimana then move east 20 metres.)

    And the intruder would have to do this despite much easier options for entry elsewhere.

    The prosecution case was solid. The reason why the victim’s family have not been “fair-minded” is that they are absolutely convinced Knox was involved. And you can see that that knowledge is torturing them.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SPMoore8
    The prosecution case was weak in either version. It is actually surprisingly easy to enter the window. And, remember, Guede was a black basketball player.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JL6nIkaYLs&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D8JL6nIkaYLs&app=desktop
    , @David In TN
    And if the Kerchers are "tortured" why aren't they angry at Guede's light sentence?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  167. Sean says:
    @WhatEvvs
    @Sean: It's Lumumba, not Lumbana.

    @Art Deco - "No, you’re using your imagination. The ‘black guy’ in question was her supervisor at work and she’d been asked to imagine scenarios. There is no indication (but Guede’s cock-and-bull) that she knew Guede."

    Right, this shit is something she babbled after four days of being slapped around and denied basic rights. I don't think she had a drink of water in that time period. We don't know exactly what she said - only what the deep-yellow press has reported. Anyway, she paid for that. I do not know if the latest decision vacated the conviction, but she paid for that.

    Re Ann Coulter - she's nuts. 100% worthless.

    Ilana Mercer: another loony. Both have completely discredited themselves with this.

    But she's on the anti-immigrant team, so let's forget about it. No, I don't. When someone writes crap like this, I'm off their team.

    About the race issue, I don't want to go there but I have to say that when Meredith Kercher's parentage became known (her mother is a dark-skinned Indian or Sri Lankan), the "Our Fair English Rose" meme/trope became difficult for the British tabloids to sustain. Most of the better reporting on the subject came from the better British papers - The Independent, The Guardian. The insanity was from Steve's favorite online soure: The Daily Wail. But even they have changed their tune, unwillingly. I note that many of the British commenters have come around to the fact that poor Meredith was murdered in a banal way by Guede.

    Lumumba wasn’t paying Knox and had suggested she drink alcohol while she was working. She was going to quit and had a few reasons for thinking him a shady character at the time of the interrogation.

    The only juror in the Central Park Five trial that wanted to acquit was a gay man. Nina Burleigh thought Knox was guilty at first . I thought she was guilty at first too.

    The Knox case just shows how anything can look bad; the prosecution had a sinister explanation for everything Knox did that morning from trying phoning Kercher to trying to break down her door (though now it is obvious that Knox would have surely have switched the phones off and had the keys to the door if she was guilty). It just shows how as it says in this anything you say can be used to crucify you.

    I like Ilana Mercer, but she can make a mistake. By the way Rita Ficarra the detective who got Knox to incriminate herself (the little dark one on the right here) is Sicilian. The cop who fed Mignini false information about a satanist conspiracy in the Monster of florence case was Sicilian too.

    Quite apart from Knox writing on her blog about approaching a ‘beautiful’ African for a date soon after she arrived in Italy (this is a third black guy not connected to the case) and the fact she had briefly met Guede at the bar and also though the men in the basement while socialising with Kercher there, there actually was quite a bit of forensic evidence against her and Sollecitto at first. By the time of the first trial verdict. The Mail published things suggesting she was innocent, this is way back in 2009 . Amanda Knox: The troubling doubts over Foxy Knoxy’s role in Meredith Kercher’s murder The Supreme court definitively acquitted her only after the (3rd) trial had made a re-test of the DNA knife (which the 2nd Hellmann court refused to order). The only possible forensic evidence was shown to simply not exist. There was no DNA of Kercher on the knife.

    The confusion is caused by the Italians having a different legal system which is Inquisitorial and operates as an ongoing search for the truth with all information taken into account, not a single verdict with only admissible testimony being heard. Escaping conviction because there is insufficient evidence is very unlikely in Italy. They come to the correct conclusion, eventually.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  168. Sean says:
    @HA
    "To my eye, it looks like the partisans in this thread are lining up about 3-to-1 in Knox’s favor. Since they know the details in-and-out while I don’t, I’m curious how they respond to the reasonable points made by “Bill B” above, some of which I think I’d also read elsewhere in the past."

    I certainly don't claim to know the details in-and-out, but I've seen enough to know that anyone who claims "it had to be this" or "no, it was certainly that" is basically saying they find the defense experts more or less credible than those of the prosecution. For the rest of us, a certain amount of ambiguity will always remain, but to take Bill B's points in order:

    1. Multiple killlers? The prosecution concedes that the knife they presented as the murder weapon did not cause all the stab wounds, so they have to push the multiple killers angle, and conveniently, they note that Sollecito was a knife enthusiast. (Pretty much everyone admits that Guede was guilty.) The defense claims, no, one killer (with a smaller knife than the one the prosecution exhibited) could have done it all.

    2. Break-in? The defense claims that there was no faked break-in, just a misinterpretation of broken glass and such.

    3. Motive? The defense claims that the numerous gripes Kircher had against Knox (among them, a reticence to flush toilets) are too picayune to qualify as a murder motive. I'm not sure if anyone ever took the prosecutor's more lurid explanations of what happened, and as a result, he sort of became his own Mark Fuhrman.

    4. Flaky behavior? I already dealt with this. Her behavior was indeed profoundly weird, but some combination of pot (and the consequent paranoia), survivor's guilt (compounded by any friction she and Kircher had experienced) and adolescent angst ("adult" is not the first term anyone would apply to her, as opposed to, say, "airhead") could also explain it, at least according to the defense. A lot of the other supposedly slam-dunk proofs that Knox knew things an innocent person could not have known become less solid upon closer inspection. (Besides, police can easily -- sometimes unconsciously -- guide someone into revealing things that they weren't supposed to know, so I tend to discount things like that.)

    5. Guede. Again, I don't think anyone claims he was an innocent. As for Knox's thrill-seeking or Sollecito's knife obsession, that's another matter of which interpretation one goes with. To say any of what Knox and Sollecito were into rises past reasonable doubt in convicting someone of murder is, to my mind, pushing it, but I'm not claiming to have the last word.

    2. Break-in? The defense claims that there was no faked break-in, just a misinterpretation of broken glass and such.

    That may well have been a mistake by the defence because even Marco Chiacchiera (the original chief investigator who opposed arresting Knox) was certain there had not been a genuine break in. If Guede faked a break in that would explain why it was done in his style. His motive for faking it would be if he had used some pretext to get Kercher (alone in the house) to open the door. Kercher did not speak Italian particularly well, she knew Guide was a acquaintance of her boyfriend, and Guede was plausible and not apparently menacing. Once he got in and realised she was alone his psychopathic tendencies came to the fore. But then he would know the police looking for the murderer would check on everyone known at the house so he faked a burglary.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  169. SFG says:

    Fun fact:

    In Haitian Vodou (voodoo), the Guede are spirits of death. Kinda fits here, eh?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gu%C3%A9d%C3%A9

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  170. Jack D says:
    @Anonymous
    .... Complicated further in the UK by the fact that the victim's father was a tabloid journalist, and that the victim's family was repeatedly fed bogus information by the Italian police which convinced them of AK and RS's complicity in the crime. This disproportionately biased the British press.

    I would also suggest that the victim's family did not behave in an exemplary fashion, seeming disproportionately partial to the anti-Knox side. Rather than saying "we want to know the truth" they persistently used the language of "justice for Meredith" even when the facts changed. I don't like to criticise people who have lost a child in awful circumstances, but they don't seem to have been very fair-minded.

    I think it’s the same dynamic that you saw in things like the Kennedy assassination. What is the meaning of life if the life of their wonderful daughter can be ended by some lowlife street criminal? She’s gone now in any case, but wasn’t someone as wonderful as she worthy of being the victim of an equal or at least a conspiracy, rather than being brought down in such a mundane, stereotypical way by a petty thug? Didn’t she deserve better? Now it sounds insane, but grief is not rational.

    Now in an insane way, it sort of worked. Meredith has now achieved immortality. She is a worldwide celebrity. If she was just another victim of a lowlife black street criminal, the story would have made a couple of column inches on the back pages of her local paper for a day and that would have been it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  171. LondonBob says:

    The Kerchers have certainly come across very badly.

    A friend’s father was a very senior judge, he said the reaction of the defendant’s lawyer was the best tell. Louise Woodward’s looked rather unhappy at the not guilty, Sollecito’s leapt into the arms of Knox’s.

    Should never have come to trial but Italy’s police and justice system leave a lot to be desired.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art Deco
    Louise Woodward’s looked rather unhappy at the not guilty,
    --
    She was found guilty. The judge reduced the charges at a subsequent hearing and reduced her sentence to time served.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  172. Art Deco says: • Website
    @Jack D
    I can understand this. The families have lost a loved one. They have been told by an authority figure for years that a certain person was responsible. That person has been convicted by a jury. Often the families develop bonds with the prosecutor. Then one day the verdict is reversed. Are they likely to conclude that their friend the prosecutor has been wrong/ lying to them all along or are they going to think that the defendant got himself some tricky lawyers and has gotten off on a technicality but is still as guilty as hell?

    In that particular case, the relatives of the deceased were motivated by pure cussedness and stupidity. Biological material found on the site did not match the defendants. It matched the man eventually found to have killed her (who had also been the last person seen with her, a datum ignored by state and local police). (The case had originally been won on bogus forensic evidence; the local prosecutor made use of perjured testimony from a crooked technician at the state crime lab who contended, in a finding the other technicians who’d looked at the evidence would not sign on to, that hairs found on the site matched the original defendants in their color and texture). One oddity of that case was that the mother of the deceased had always been perturbed by the original verdicts and not persuaded that the police had found her daughter’s killer. That case was similar to the Knox case in several respects. One was that the defendants were (a) implausible and (b) wildly implausible as the perpetrators of a rape/murder of a stranger. One was (at the time of the murder) a 29 year old divorced town drunk who lived with his mother and had a string of citations for public drunkenness and disorderly conduct in his past, but no serious crime. The other was a 35 year old widowed schoolteacher with a child and no criminal record. The two were 3d drawer friends who spent time together infrequently; local authorities were given receipts which corroborated the account of one defendant’s mother as to where he had been the night of the murder, and no witnesses who had been at the bar where the deceased worked reported seeing the man there even though he was a loud and well-known local figure among pub-crawlers. The authorities had no evidence the other defendant had ever set foot in the bar where the deceased worked.

    I don’t think it’s too much to expect the father of the deceased to know how the world works well enough to be skeptical that a schoolteacher approaching middle age without a rap sheet would sexually assault and murder a cocktail waitress for cheap thrills, but evidently it is too much.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  173. Art Deco says: • Website
    @D. K.
    I almost picked that up at the library, the other day, but they charge a buck for DVDs, and I had no money on me. I noticed on the DVD cover that Roger Ebert had proclaimed it one of the best movies of the year (2010), which surprised me. I definitely hope to watch it soon.

    I (unsurprisingly) believe that Robert Durst murdered his friend of thirty-five years, Susan Berman. Whether that was because she was extorting him, or just because he was unwilling to risk that she might tell D.A. Jeanine Pirro's investigators anything at all incriminating, I do not know. Regardless, as an American and as a former officer of the court, I believe in the adversarial system-- meaning that the L.A. D.A. needs to prove the case in court, beyond a reasonable doubt, based only on the admitted evidence, to a jury that has sworn to do its duty, presuming the innocence of the defendant. My individual beliefs about the truth of the matter, or the character of the defendant, are all beside the point. I believe that it is a very defensible case, on those terms, unless the L.A. D.A. has something more on Durst than what we now know. (As for that incriminating note to the "Beverley [sic] Hills Police" that was postmarked on December 23, 2000, I have a quite-plausible defense for that piece of evidence, in particular.)

    As for Robert Durst's unfortunate first wife, the former Kathleen McCormack, I (unsurprisingly) believe that he killed her, on Sunday evening, January 31, 1982. I also believe that Susan Berman was the one who called the medical school, the following day, pretending to be Kathie Durst, and that Ms. Berman was privy to the fact that Mrs. Durst was dead already. Whether Bob Durst killed his wife intentionally or accidentally, during the course of yet another argument that got out of hand, I do not know. Whether he ever told Ms. Berman the truth about how Kathie Durst died, I do not know. I believe it very likely, though, that Bob dismembered Kathie's body, as he later would Morris Black's, and then dumped it near Ship Bottom, New Jersey, on Tuesday, February 2, 1982. Whether he disposed of it on land or at sea, I do not know. I do not believe that he ever will talk, in that regard; so, I do not believe that the McCormack family, and Kathie Durst's very loyal friends, ever will get the closure that they are hoping for, now, even if Robert Durst is convicted in L.A. for Susan Berman's murder.

    As for Robert Durst's own story about the Morris Black slaying, in September 2001, it was laughable on the face of it. How did Morris Black enter Durst's apartment? Are we to believe that this paranoid man, hiding out from the New York authorities, with a gun to protect him from Jeanine Pirro's Arab bloodlust for his Jewish hide, left his apartment unlocked, and his guns lying out in the open for Morris Black to get his hands on, while Durst was out of the boarding house, after Black had supposedly been ordered never to step foot in the place again, because he had allegedly attempted to shoot his eviction notice? Are we to believe that there was a bullet hole in the wall, nearly six feet up, because Morris Black had shot at his eviction notice and missed? Are we to believe that someone other than Robert Durst retrieved the head of Morris Black, after his body parts had washed back ashore, and has been holding on to it, ever since, without coming forward with the most crucial piece of forensic evidence, in a local case that was a national sensation? Most tellingly, are we to take the word of the man who dismembered and disposed of Morris Black's body parts that only one accidental shot was fired, that fateful night, when one of Robert Durst's neighbors testified under oath that she had heard two shots, while no one, other than Durst himself, testified to hearing a shot, on the earlier occasion, when Morris Black supposedly shot amiss at his own eviction notice, while in Robert Durst's apartment? The size of what that jury swallowed was just amazing!

    That’s how you would describe what went down? Again, all you’re doing is tearing your own credibility to shreds. According to the Wiki I linked to:

    Cute.

    Read More
    • Replies: @HA
    Cute.

    Hmm.... Wikipedia vs. your citation-free assertions? Which to choose, which to choose... In any case, if that's the extent of your rebuttal, it's close enough to a concession for me.

    As for Coulter, and your continuing assertion that I find her condemnation reasonable, I will reiterate my previous observation that her primary mistake was believing the clean-up/bleach story. Had that not been debunked, it would have explained why Guede's DNA was so pervasive, whereas Knox's or Sollecito's were absent and would have been the nail in the coffin of the defense. Given that the alleged bleach purchase turned out to be more misinformation (along the lines of how Knox was brutalized into confessing) Coulter should indeed revise her condemnation in light of that.

    But no bleach (or lack thereof) washes out Knox's bizarre confession/accusation, which you euphemistically refer to as a "not being able recall securely a sequence of events." That being the case, I suggest you remedy your own howlers first, before taking down Coulter.

    You banging Coulter?

    Ah, keeping it classy, I see. Speaking of which, hats off for not calling her or some of the many other women you have a beef with a "broad" this time around. Unusual self-restraint on your behalf.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  174. anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    There was a case in Illinois where a child was murdered, nine year old Jeanine Nicarico. Two men were convicted after being hustled by the police into making what seemed to be self-incriminating statements. A serial killer, Brian Dugan, later admitted to the crime and stated he acted on his own; he had no connection to the convicted. The case dragged on forever. The men were later exonerated and set free. The prosecutors had the child’s family convinced they were right and so had them as their supporters; they just couldn’t see straight. The prosecutors also changed their story so that the confessed serial killer met up with the convicted, total strangers, and acted together.
    The case led to the death penalty in Illinois being abolished. Law enforcement and prosecutors weren’t just inept but acted in bad faith. Once they committed themselves they could never lose face and admit they were wrong but just kept doggedly pursuing it. They’ve had a number of cases like this such as the Gary Gauger case. Those people would rather kill you than admit they’re wrong.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  175. Tony says:
    @Lot
    In the United States, black males commit murder at about 60 times the rate of white females.

    Now if you consider that Guede was abandoned by his parents, had a long criminal record, including drug sales and many burglaries, and that Knox was a middle class college student, that 60:1 ratio becomes more like 6,000:1.

    Yeah but I have never seen more evil eyes on a white woman than Amanda Knox.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  176. Art Deco says: • Website
    @HA
    "Coulter has actually made reference to supposed biological material from Kercher on the tip of one of Sollecito’s kitchen knives (a forensic finding later discredited)."

    Whether it was discredited depends on whether you believe the pathologists who are paid by the prosecution, or the experts paid by the defense. As convinced as you apparently are, your failure to take into account that ambiguity only serves to cast suspicion on your own objectivity.


    Ann Coulter’s evidence for that is that two confused young people cannot recall securely the sequence of events in their activities over a 12 hour period and tell conflicting stories which vary with the telling.

    Hold on there: cannot recall securely? That's how you would describe what went down? Again, all you're doing is tearing your own credibility to shreds. According to the Wiki I linked to:


    "...The following day, 4 November, the Italian flatmates and Knox were summoned for further questioning. To check whether any knives were missing, they were taken to the upper flat, where Knox broke down crying and shaking...Knox was asked into the Flying Squad offices where, so she was told, Sollecito's interview was about to finish.... According to the police,..Knox was told that Sollecito, in another interview room, was no longer saying Knox had been with him all night, but was now maintaining she had left him at 9 pm to go to Le Chic, and had not returned to his apartment until 1 am...Giobbi, watching the interview from a control room, later said he heard Knox scream....Chief Detective Inspector Rita Ficarra told the trial that Knox started to cry when asked about activity on her mobile phone before it was switched off on the night of the murder...The last activity on Knox's phone on the night of the murder was a text to Le Chic's owner, Lumumba...Knox had deleted Lumumba's text from the memory of the phone. She told detectives she did not remember replying to it.The detectives looked through the phone's messages and found that Knox had replied....The interrogators showed Knox her reply to Lumumba on the display of her mobile.Anna Donnino, an interpreter for the Perugia police, told the trial that Knox had an "emotional shock" on being shown her text to Lumumba, and said: "It's him, he did it, I can feel it."

    According to the detectives, Knox told them she had met Lumumba at the basketball court at 8:30 pm, before going with him to Via della Pergola 7 where Lumumba had committed the murder, thereby implicating herself as his accomplice. Knox signed a statement, written by the police in official Italian, which said: "I have a hard time remembering those moments but Patrick had sex with Meredith, with whom he was infatuated, but I cannot remember clearly whether he threatened Meredith first. I remember confusedly that he killed her." She told Italian interrogators that she had covered her ears to drown out Kercher's screams.
     

    This was all in between being served tea and a meal. Claims that she was brutalized and beaten have likewise dissipated into thin air. In any case, you characterize that merely as "two confused young people not being able recall securely" a sequence of events? Yeah, good luck pushing that. If Coulter's credibility needs to be called into question as the result of her bias in this matter, maybe she's not the only one of whom that can be said.

    As for me, I stand by what I have already written: that the evidence against Knox -- apart from her complete lack of credibility -- does not come close to a guilty verdict, especially considering the absence of any motive. That being said, to Coulter or anyone else who finds her flaky behavior indicative of something more sinister than merely being "confused", I will nonetheless concede that their suspicions are, at the least, understandable.

    That being said, to Coulter or anyone else who finds her flaky behavior indicative of something more sinister than merely being “confused”, I will nonetheless concede that their suspicions are, at the least, understandable.

    “Understandable suspicions” does not describe Coulter’s contentions in this case. Whatever you suspect, you’re positing three perpetrators, two of them foreign to the site. One of these two leaves ample biological material and one leaves almost none. The minute quantity detected re one defendant is in a mishandled sample. Technicians employed by the investigatory authorities managed to destroy potentially exculpatory evidence on one defendant’s computer hard drive. An ordinary person would tend to regard the contentions of technicians in that apparat with greater skepticism than you ordinarily would, notably when their findings are cogently disputed and (re Sollecito’s kitchen knives) never rose to the degree of certainty you find with conventional DNA testing. The forensic “evidence” against them is worthless, the police behaved incompetently or maliciously (take your pick) in handling other evidence, the accused have no discernible motives, the accused have no history of criminal conduct, and there is no evidence of extant social relationships encompassing all three supposed perpetrators. But you fancy Coulter is a reasonable person for thinking these two guilty. You banging Coulter?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  177. SPMoore8 says:
    @Ron Unz


    Amanda Knox Acquitted of 2007 Murder by Italy’s Highest Court.
     
    It turns out that the real killer was … the black street criminal.
     
    Well, if legal verdicts are so conclusive, should OJ get his good name back?

    Glancing over the thread, I'd guess I've followed this case about 95% less than most of the conflicting commenters, but I do recall that Knox's behavior and statements during the investigation struck me as very odd, sufficiently odd that I thought there was at least a 50-50 chance she was involved in the murder. Since the Italian courts have now both convicted and acquitted her several separate times, I can't see how more more acquittal makes much of a difference.

    Another factor was that if this court had ruled against her, wouldn't Italy have had to try to get her extradicted back? And since America wouldn't have complied, the Italian government would have looked ridiculous, an embarrassment that the ruling averted.

    To my eye, it looks like the partisans in this thread are lining up about 3-to-1 in Knox's favor. Since they know the details in-and-out while I don't, I'm curious how they despond to the reasonable points made by "Bill B" above, some of which I think I'd also read elsewhere in the past.

    My own take came very late, since I never paid any attention to the case in 2007 or 2008. I had a co-worker who was virulently in Amanda’s favor (since deceased) and I remember that advocacy struck me. I didn’t learn anything about the case until a year ago January when the Italian court reinstated the convictions. By then, Amanda had already been in the states for 3 years.

    The bullet points that on the surface seem persuasive of “something” are actually inferences, in most cases they are not “facts”.

    The points that lead me to think that Amanda and Raffaele (AK and RS) are probably innocent could be summarized this way:

    1. The timeline. AK and RS were both arrested for the murder within a few days. On the other hand, we now know that Rudy Guede (RG) raped and murdered the victim, however, he wasn’t arrested until a month later, after fleeing to Germany. So this looks right away like a “facts fitting theory” scenario.

    2. RG’s guilt is conclusive, based on the forensic evidence (blood, fingerprints, DNA) especially in the room where the Meredith Kercher (MK) was killed. By contrast, there is no DNA evidence of AK in the room, and only one (questionable) trace of RS DNA on a bra clasp that was found on the floor and was processed some time after the killing. Based on the way trace evidence and DNA evidence is supposed to work, I think it is very unlikely that AK or RS were in the murder room, which means, at best, that they were somehow accomplices in the murder (including accessories before or after the fact.)

    3. Occam’s Razor. I know this is invoked frequently, but in this case it does seem appropriate. We have a murder scene, we have a dead body, we have plenty of forensic evidence at the murder scene, and it all points to RG. So, query, why are we even talking about AK and RS? Because they were arrested almost immediately and the prosecution was convinced that they were somehow involved. That is the ultimate source for all the inferences cited up top.

    Put another way, the simplest explanation is that RG broke in, raped Meredith, murdered her, stole her money, and then skipped town. Except for the first point, there’s no question that the rest is what happened. The only question left is the extent to which AK or RS were involved in some satanic “Halloween” or Samhain ritual (don’t blame me, that was the prosecutor’s idea.)

    I don’t want to absolve AK or RS from acting strangely, and I have no desire to devote that much energy to the case, but (a) I am convinced that the evidence never rose above a “reasonable doubt” threshold, and (b) I don’t think you can convict someone of murder and sentence them to what is in practical terms three times longer than the actual killer and expect to be taken seriously.

    I’ve never heard a coherent counter-explanation for why AK or RS were, at best, accomplices to the murder of MK. I’d be willing to give it a listen.

    Read More
    • Replies: @DavidB
    Nobody disputes that Guede was the primary killer: the issue is whether Knox and/or Sollecito were also involved. There is strong evidence that Guede had an accomplice(s). The Italian Supreme Court final decision is reported to still accept this (we shall have to see their full report for confirmation). There are strong circumstantial grounds for suspicion that Knox and/or Sollecito were the accomplice(s), and no credible evidence to implicate anyone else. In the American legal system many people have been tried, convicted, and executed on less evidence than this. Personally, I think the lack of direct forensic evidence against K/S raises sufficient reasonable doubt for an acquittal, but the Scottish verdict of 'not proven' would be better than 'not guilty'. Knox is certainly guilty of making false accusations against Lumumba, and probably against the police.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  178. Just to put in my two cents on the Knox case — if it’s even worth that — one thing that always bothers me about how people approach cases like this is how much weight they attach to how they perceive the affect and behavior of the accused. If someone seems not to show the expected horror, or shock, or grief, or whatever, then people will conclude that the person must be guilty, or hiding something.

    But I think that such judgements are extremely unreliable. People are likely very different when it comes to how they react under such circumstances, and intuitions about such reactions give no useful guidance. This is why it is very important to focus on forensic evidence.

    I suspect that Italians generally put great store on their intuitions, and that there may be an especially great gap between their expectations as to how innocent people should behave and emote under these circumstances and how an innocent person from a more reserved culture, such as the American culture, might actually behave and emote. (And there might even be a genetic component to those differences.)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Knox should have broken into a ten minute aria about how heart-broken she was. The Italian cops would have thrown roses at her feet for performing grandly the appropriate emotional response.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  179. D. K. says:
    @D. K.
    The fact that the prosecutors came up with two totally different theories for their two successful prosecutions, in the lower courts, should give one some pause, should it not, Mr. Unz?

    The fact that the only forensic evidence alleged to tie the two defendants to the crime, during their first trial, was totally debunked before the second trial, by the government's own crime laboratory, should do likewise, should it not, Mr. Unz?

    The fact that Rudy Guede explicitly stated that Amanda Knox was not present in her own apartment, that night, and only testified later against Knox and her Italian boyfriend after Guede himself-- already convicted and sentenced to 30 years for his vicious rape and murder of Meredith Kercher-- had amazingly had his sentence reduced to a mere 14 years-- barely half of those for Knox and her boyfriend-- despite the fact that only his DNA was found in, on and near the victim, along with his bloody handprints and footprints, should give one even more pause, should it not, Mr. Unz?

    For the record, Mr. Unz, when is the last time that you or anyone whom you know committed such a violent and bloody crime as what was done to Meredith Kercher, yet were able to escape the scene without leaving any forensic evidence of your crime, while someone else's DNA and bloody prints were all around the room (along with unflushed feces, in the bathroom, bearing the same person's DNA)?

    In the words of the King of Siam: "'Tis a puzzlement!"

    I should have said that Rudy Guede’s original sentence was reduced, on appeal, from 30 years to 16 years– not 14 years, as I wrote, above! Mea culpa!!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  180. Keith Vaz [AKA "Sir Charles Pipkins"] says:

    WTF is Guede doing in Italy? Italy only ever colonised Abysinia, not Ivory Coast (even that was late). I knew from the start that Knox and Sollecito were set up by the TPTB to obfuscate the fact that this Black-on-White murder rate is so destructive of The Narrative. But facts are a b- and the ZM generally does away with them, unlike courts.

    The same dynamics worked on Senor Prandelli in bringing Balotelli to the WC. He got them knocked out at the first round thanks to his ill discipline and inability to work within the catanacio system. Ths demoralised his team-mates. But Prandelli was so terrified of being called ‘waaaaaaaycis’…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  181. Wilkey says:
    @Ron Unz


    Amanda Knox Acquitted of 2007 Murder by Italy’s Highest Court.
     
    It turns out that the real killer was … the black street criminal.
     
    Well, if legal verdicts are so conclusive, should OJ get his good name back?

    Glancing over the thread, I'd guess I've followed this case about 95% less than most of the conflicting commenters, but I do recall that Knox's behavior and statements during the investigation struck me as very odd, sufficiently odd that I thought there was at least a 50-50 chance she was involved in the murder. Since the Italian courts have now both convicted and acquitted her several separate times, I can't see how more more acquittal makes much of a difference.

    Another factor was that if this court had ruled against her, wouldn't Italy have had to try to get her extradicted back? And since America wouldn't have complied, the Italian government would have looked ridiculous, an embarrassment that the ruling averted.

    To my eye, it looks like the partisans in this thread are lining up about 3-to-1 in Knox's favor. Since they know the details in-and-out while I don't, I'm curious how they despond to the reasonable points made by "Bill B" above, some of which I think I'd also read elsewhere in the past.

    I won’t pretend to be an expert on the case, but all the “evidence” the Keystone Kops have to tie Knox to the krime is that they can’t posit a way that Guede could have committed the crime on his own based on the evidence they have, so Knox and Sollecito must have been in on it…because.

    It reminds me of the case of the West Memphis Three, where three young boys were murdered, so some overzealous prosecutors railroad three troubled but innocent young men and posit a ridiculous fantasy – occult sacrifice in one case, sex games in the other – round up a few “witnesses” of dubious credibility, and ignore all evidence to the contrary, and convict them despite the fact that none of the material evidence they actually have points to the accused.

    The Robin Hood Hills murders were committed by a brutal step-father, not three dumb teenagers committing an occult sacrifice. Meredith Kercher was murdered by an African immigrant burglarizing her home, not an African plus two SWPL college grads playing an S&M game.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  182. I agree wholeheartedly with everyone who has pointed out that it’s an outrage that Guede got a much lighter sentence than Knox and Sollecito. But that’s the way the system works, in Italy and in America.

    If you play nice with the cops, take the deal, rat someone else out, and generally make their life easy, they’ll go easy on you.

    But if you challenge the authority of the cops, insist on your innocence, make the cops and prosecutors do more work than paper shuffling, then they get pissed and throw the book at you.

    In their eyes, the real crime is when you don’t do exactly what they want.

    I think the whole concept of plea bargaining and reduced sentences if you don’t go to trial is an outrage against justice, and gives police and prosecutors way too much power.

    Imagine if you got a traffic ticket for $100, and you technically have the right to fight it, but if you lose, you would have to pay $1,000 and spend 6 months in jail. No one would fight tickets in that case. It wouldn’t be worth the risk.

    But cops get to do the same thing with people’s lives. 5 years if you play nice. 30 years if you try to fight. Many people take the deal even if they’re innocent, the police get their convictions, and no bureaucrat has to work so hard.

    What do you think the next Amanda Knox is going to do, innocent or guilty? Especially if she isn’t pretty and doesn’t have the American media making a fuss over her. She’d be a moron not to take a deal.

    The way cops and prosecutors can play with your punishment based on how cooperative you are stinks to high heaven.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  183. Ron Unz says:
    @D. K.
    The fact that the prosecutors came up with two totally different theories for their two successful prosecutions, in the lower courts, should give one some pause, should it not, Mr. Unz?

    The fact that the only forensic evidence alleged to tie the two defendants to the crime, during their first trial, was totally debunked before the second trial, by the government's own crime laboratory, should do likewise, should it not, Mr. Unz?

    The fact that Rudy Guede explicitly stated that Amanda Knox was not present in her own apartment, that night, and only testified later against Knox and her Italian boyfriend after Guede himself-- already convicted and sentenced to 30 years for his vicious rape and murder of Meredith Kercher-- had amazingly had his sentence reduced to a mere 14 years-- barely half of those for Knox and her boyfriend-- despite the fact that only his DNA was found in, on and near the victim, along with his bloody handprints and footprints, should give one even more pause, should it not, Mr. Unz?

    For the record, Mr. Unz, when is the last time that you or anyone whom you know committed such a violent and bloody crime as what was done to Meredith Kercher, yet were able to escape the scene without leaving any forensic evidence of your crime, while someone else's DNA and bloody prints were all around the room (along with unflushed feces, in the bathroom, bearing the same person's DNA)?

    In the words of the King of Siam: "'Tis a puzzlement!"

    Well, as I’d emphasized, I’ve probably followed this case much less than any other commenter here, which is why I decided to read the conflicting back-and-forth exchanges to get a sense of the evidence.

    I fully admit it would have been very odd for Knox to have involved herself in a brutal attack against Kercher, an attack that unexpectedly escalated to murder.

    But her alleged behavior and statements also seem very odd for a totally innocent person, as described here:

    http://www.unz.com/isteve/haven-monahan-john-doerr-and-now-amanda-knox-three-great-white-defendants-walk-in-one-week/#comment-910471

    That’s why a casual observer such as myself continues to think it seems around 50-50 that she was somehow involved in the crime…

    Read More
    • Replies: @D. K.
    She was a naive young co-ed from Seattle, where I lived longer than anywhere else, attending my two-time alma mater, the University of Washington, who had been in Italy for only a matter of weeks when Rudy Guede raped and murdered her roommate. The authorities supposedly found her suspicious for such incriminating behavior as doing a handstand in the hallway, while waiting to be interviewed, and for being affectionate with her new boyfriend, while the two waited outside of her apartment, then an active crime scene, along with a crowd of local ghouls.

    She was interrogated by the authorities in a foreign language that she was only beginning to learn, with no legal representation present, about a murder case. How would you like to be interrogated, without legal counsel present, in a provincial foreign city, Mr. Unz? How would you have like it as a Harvard undergraduate, rather than as a rich, middle-aged entrepreneur with social and political connections?

    As someone from a background much closer to hers than to yours, who went to Italy, at age 18, for my own brother's ordination at the Vatican, forty years ago, I would have been confused and scared shitless-- and I suspect that I have a much higher IQ than Ms. Knox, as well as having a brother, back then, who knew the Pope personally, and another one, smarter than I, who was then a criminal-defense lawyer for the United States Army Reserve!

    Most of what people now think that they know about Amanda Knox and her then-boyfriend, and especially about the former's supposedly suspicious behavior and incriminating statements, comes from the Italian police and prosecutors, as reported by the same press that you now claim to distrust about what it chooses to tell us and not tell us, and about how it chooses to tell us even that which it is willing to tell us. As a former attorney, and Italophile (I took two years of Italian, at Purdue, after my 1975 visit), I do not choose to believe their authorities; in fact, I trust them markedly less than I trust our American authorities-- which, these days, is saying quite something!

    The crux of any criminal case-- aside from confessions or eyewitness accounts (cf. my earlier comment, supra, about Drs. Kassin and Loftus)-- is a plausible narrative of why and how the crime took place. The case against Ms. Knox and S. Sollecito was a bizarre fantasy, on the face of it. If the Italian authorities had had Occam's razor at hand, they would have held it to her throat, while inviting her to sign on the dotted line-- a la Don Corleone and Luca Brasi!

    Rudy Guede had a recent history of burglaries matching the crime scene that night. He was known to carry a large knife with him during such crimes, because he had been seen so armed, during one of his burglaries. He lied about not being there, and then, when confronted with the ready proof that he was lying, he made up an absurd story about going to the bathroom, in the middle of consensual sex with the decedent, and hearing a stranger enter the apartment, followed by a struggle and the death screams of the victim. He claimed to have then left the bathroom-- without flushing, as we all know-- in time to see the killer leave the apartment, warning poor Rudy to keep quiet. Rudy then takes a powder to Germany, when he learns that he might be a suspect, and is captured carrying some of the victim's personal belongings.

    [EXPLETIVE DELETED]!!! Does it really take Sherlock Holmes to figure this one out, Mr. Unz?!?

    , @Jack D
    Fortunately (for AK) the standard for criminal responsibility (at least in the US) is not - 50/50 but much higher (beyond a reasonable doubt = 90%+. Blackstone's formulation was that it was better for 10 guilty men to go free than to see one innocent wrongly convicted.)

    There is no doubt that AK did not behave the way we would have wanted her to behave in an ideal world. No one said that she is a moral paragon or a role model for children or anything like that. One of the mistakes that we are prone to making is that we tend to assume that if someone is beautiful on the outside that this corresponds to some inner beauty as well. AK appears to be far from a beautiful person on the inside. Our decayed society does not produce a lot of people possessed of great inner strength or character. She is just you mint issue SWPL 21st century Generation Y vegan with all the weaknesses that implies. But, whatever negative things you can say about those people, they are not prone to stabbing others. That is the province of Africans like Guede. There is a big difference between acting weirdly ( though weirdness is somewhat in the eye of the beholder) and killing someone. I would convict her of being a weirdo but not of murder, nor did her weirdness really correspond to the behavior of someone who was guilty and trying to cover up their crime - it was just plain strange, like that of a not very strong person who falls apart when she is put under pressure. Maybe because she was a not very strong person who was put under pressure

    We have someone who is clearly and beyond all doubt the actual murderer. I don't see any need to invent further conspiracies or add additional murderers when the one that we have is so clearly guilty and did not need any help. If the Italian police had identified Guede as a suspect immediately after the murder then they would have left it at that and would probably never have even tried to go after Knox, but once they got it into their heads that she had somehow participated they couldn't let it go, even if they had to keep making up totally contradictory theories as to how she was involved and even if they had to make her strange behavior seem sinister instead of just strange.

    It also seems strange to me that all the moral outrage is saved for Knox while everyone seems to be totally OK with the actual murderer , who is already out on day release.

    , @C. Van Carter
    For odd behavior by innocent people see the Kay Mortensen case.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  184. @Anonymous
    .... Complicated further in the UK by the fact that the victim's father was a tabloid journalist, and that the victim's family was repeatedly fed bogus information by the Italian police which convinced them of AK and RS's complicity in the crime. This disproportionately biased the British press.

    I would also suggest that the victim's family did not behave in an exemplary fashion, seeming disproportionately partial to the anti-Knox side. Rather than saying "we want to know the truth" they persistently used the language of "justice for Meredith" even when the facts changed. I don't like to criticise people who have lost a child in awful circumstances, but they don't seem to have been very fair-minded.

    It seems as if the family of a victim almost always supports the prosecution theory. Fortunately, in most cases the prosecution theory is actually what happened, but it seems to be a typical pattern even in doubtful cases. Art Deco noted this above as well.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  185. Sean says:
    @Ron Unz


    Amanda Knox Acquitted of 2007 Murder by Italy’s Highest Court.
     
    It turns out that the real killer was … the black street criminal.
     
    Well, if legal verdicts are so conclusive, should OJ get his good name back?

    Glancing over the thread, I'd guess I've followed this case about 95% less than most of the conflicting commenters, but I do recall that Knox's behavior and statements during the investigation struck me as very odd, sufficiently odd that I thought there was at least a 50-50 chance she was involved in the murder. Since the Italian courts have now both convicted and acquitted her several separate times, I can't see how more more acquittal makes much of a difference.

    Another factor was that if this court had ruled against her, wouldn't Italy have had to try to get her extradicted back? And since America wouldn't have complied, the Italian government would have looked ridiculous, an embarrassment that the ruling averted.

    To my eye, it looks like the partisans in this thread are lining up about 3-to-1 in Knox's favor. Since they know the details in-and-out while I don't, I'm curious how they despond to the reasonable points made by "Bill B" above, some of which I think I'd also read elsewhere in the past.

    The hearings have been part of a single process. Italian prosecutors and judiciary are completely independent of government, and actually enjoy embarrassing them. In 1999 Giulio Andreotti the most influential statesman in the country was tried for ordering the murder of a journalist, the charges were brought by prosecutors in Perugia (same place as Knox). He was acquitted but the Supreme court ordered a retrial . In Britain or America a jury verdict of not guilty is final, but the prosecution can appeal an acquittal in Italy . Anyway in 2002 he was convicted at the second trial in Perugia,. But then the same Supreme court flung the whole case out, definitively acquitting him in 2003. The only person who has ever been convicted (in the final sense attached to a ‘conviction’ in the Us) for murdering Kercher is Guede.

    Italian courts have to give a very long detailed written grounds for their verdict and anything the higher court does not like in the written explanation can be used to order it to be re-heard, they often do. The Hellmann court that freed Knox ruled there had been no break in and refused to order retesting of a discredited DNA evidence supposedly found on a knife so the Supreme court sent it back. The only possible shed of hard evidence against Knox was the DNA allegedly on the knife, but it was shown to be non-existent by retesting at the third trial. The Supreme court was satisfied and gave a strong not guilty, thereby acting with Knox just as it had with Andreotti: definitive acquittal because there was no longer a case to answer.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_L%27Aquila_earthquake

    Italy convicted earthquake scientists of manslaughter then acquitted them

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  186. Wilkey says:

    “That’s why a casual observer such as myself continues to think it seems around 50-50 that she was somehow involved in the crime”

    Twentysomething white female college grads commit an infinitesimally small share of murders, and murderers who are undeniably guilty (e.g., Guede) will lie their asses off to have their sentences reduced. Guede originally claimed Knox had nothing to do with the murder. What motive would he have for denying that?

    50-50? More like 9,999-1 that she wasn’t involved.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  187. D. K. says:
    @Ron Unz
    Well, as I'd emphasized, I've probably followed this case much less than any other commenter here, which is why I decided to read the conflicting back-and-forth exchanges to get a sense of the evidence.

    I fully admit it would have been very odd for Knox to have involved herself in a brutal attack against Kercher, an attack that unexpectedly escalated to murder.

    But her alleged behavior and statements also seem very odd for a totally innocent person, as described here:

    http://www.unz.com/isteve/haven-monahan-john-doerr-and-now-amanda-knox-three-great-white-defendants-walk-in-one-week/#comment-910471

    That's why a casual observer such as myself continues to think it seems around 50-50 that she was somehow involved in the crime...

    She was a naive young co-ed from Seattle, where I lived longer than anywhere else, attending my two-time alma mater, the University of Washington, who had been in Italy for only a matter of weeks when Rudy Guede raped and murdered her roommate. The authorities supposedly found her suspicious for such incriminating behavior as doing a handstand in the hallway, while waiting to be interviewed, and for being affectionate with her new boyfriend, while the two waited outside of her apartment, then an active crime scene, along with a crowd of local ghouls.

    She was interrogated by the authorities in a foreign language that she was only beginning to learn, with no legal representation present, about a murder case. How would you like to be interrogated, without legal counsel present, in a provincial foreign city, Mr. Unz? How would you have like it as a Harvard undergraduate, rather than as a rich, middle-aged entrepreneur with social and political connections?

    As someone from a background much closer to hers than to yours, who went to Italy, at age 18, for my own brother’s ordination at the Vatican, forty years ago, I would have been confused and scared shitless– and I suspect that I have a much higher IQ than Ms. Knox, as well as having a brother, back then, who knew the Pope personally, and another one, smarter than I, who was then a criminal-defense lawyer for the United States Army Reserve!

    Most of what people now think that they know about Amanda Knox and her then-boyfriend, and especially about the former’s supposedly suspicious behavior and incriminating statements, comes from the Italian police and prosecutors, as reported by the same press that you now claim to distrust about what it chooses to tell us and not tell us, and about how it chooses to tell us even that which it is willing to tell us. As a former attorney, and Italophile (I took two years of Italian, at Purdue, after my 1975 visit), I do not choose to believe their authorities; in fact, I trust them markedly less than I trust our American authorities– which, these days, is saying quite something!

    The crux of any criminal case– aside from confessions or eyewitness accounts (cf. my earlier comment, supra, about Drs. Kassin and Loftus)– is a plausible narrative of why and how the crime took place. The case against Ms. Knox and S. Sollecito was a bizarre fantasy, on the face of it. If the Italian authorities had had Occam’s razor at hand, they would have held it to her throat, while inviting her to sign on the dotted line– a la Don Corleone and Luca Brasi!

    Rudy Guede had a recent history of burglaries matching the crime scene that night. He was known to carry a large knife with him during such crimes, because he had been seen so armed, during one of his burglaries. He lied about not being there, and then, when confronted with the ready proof that he was lying, he made up an absurd story about going to the bathroom, in the middle of consensual sex with the decedent, and hearing a stranger enter the apartment, followed by a struggle and the death screams of the victim. He claimed to have then left the bathroom– without flushing, as we all know– in time to see the killer leave the apartment, warning poor Rudy to keep quiet. Rudy then takes a powder to Germany, when he learns that he might be a suspect, and is captured carrying some of the victim’s personal belongings.

    [EXPLETIVE DELETED]!!! Does it really take Sherlock Holmes to figure this one out, Mr. Unz?!?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack D
    I agree with everything that you say, except that you need to know WHY a crime took place. In our jurisprudence (I don't know about Italy), motive is not a necessary element of a crime that the prosecution must prove. Half the time, we have no idea WHY a certain crime was committed. Sometimes, the criminal himself doesn't know. There are also lots of people that have ample motive for killing someone but simply haven't done it. All the prosecutor needs to show is that you showed up at the bank and waved a gun at the teller and that's you on that video tape. WHY you did it is really of no concern, only IF.

    If the Italian prosecutors had had real evidence against Knox and Sollecito - reliable DNA or eye witnesses or video tape or whatever, then they would not have had to try so hard making up cockamamie theories about sex parties, etc. But they didn't so they gave us soap opera instead of proof. I could have made up ten more semi-plausible stories about WHY Knox and Sollecito conspired to kill Meredith - a drug deal gone wrong, a love triangle, she had eaten their leftover Chinese food, etc. But all of such stories are worthless without actual proof.
    , @Ron Unz

    Most of what people now think that they know about Amanda Knox and her then-boyfriend, and especially about the former’s supposedly suspicious behavior and incriminating statements, comes from the Italian police and prosecutors, as reported by the same press that you now claim to distrust about what it chooses to tell us and not tell us, and about how it chooses to tell us even that which it is willing to tell us. As a former attorney, and Italophile (I took two years of Italian, at Purdue, after my 1975 visit), I do not choose to believe their authorities.
     
    Well, as you say, I tend to be cautious in believing everything the MSM tells us. But I think massive disinformation is generally due to the unfortunate influence of various powerful individuals or groups. It's just not clear to me who would have a vested interest in railroading Ms. Knox and her Italian boyfriend.

    You might certainly be correct that the various statements and actions of Knox that seemed so suspicious to me (some of which I pointed to above) came from the Italian police, and were whole-cloth inventions intended to help convict her. Naturally, if they were all fictional, my suspicions were groundless. It's obviously very difficult for someone like me to decide without detailed investigation.

    However, I think your important question of motive also cuts the other way. I grant that Knox and her boyfriend had no apparent motive for brutalizing Kercher, which accidentally led to her murder. But I also can't think of any reason the Italian police would want to frame some American girl and her straight-arrow Italian boyfriend in a brutal sex-murder; offhand, they'd seem about the least likely suspects imaginable. Supposedly, the police claim that Knox falsely implicated some local black guy as the rapist, who was then thrown in jail, while the true rapist turned out to be a different local black guy, so there doesn't even seem to be any real racial angle.

    The newspapers seem to say that the overwhelming majority of Americans think Knox is innocent, while equally large majorities of Italians and British think she's guilty. I doubt that ordinary Italians have an overly inflated opinion of the perfect credibility of their own police or media, so I wonder why they'd be so sure that a "nice Italian boy" was somehow involved in the brutal killing.
    , @Danindc
    great post and great thread by the way. Thanks to all parties - fascinating case esp when smart people disagree. This post sealed it for me though. Not guilty.
    , @Truth
    " and I suspect that I have a much higher IQ than Ms. Knox"

    Mr Unz has an IQ much higher than yours.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  188. @Wilkey
    What's pathetic about this whole Italian fuck-up isn't just that they tried to railroad two clearly innocent (white) people, but that the actual, undeniable, incontrovertible (black) murderer got away with an obscenely low 16 year sentence and is already eligible for "day release." Not only did he commit the murder, but he implicated two perfectly innocent people in the crime.

    Not “perfectly innocent” White people; they need to choose their friends more carefully!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack D
    Guede the murderer was not their friend, nor a friend of the victim either. He had apparently seen the girls once before in the apartment of their downstairs neighbors (they knew him a little from playing pickup basketball in the park - they weren't really his "friends" either) and took an interest in them which was not reciprocated. Knox is lucky that she was not home in addition to or instead of Meredith or she could have just as well been Guede's victim. Knox is precisely the kind of clueless "open minded" liberal who might have lacked the judgment not to associate with lowlife blacks (she went to work for a black bar owner who failed to pay her) but she did NOT make friends with Guede. Guede was basically homeless and appeared to have a habit of not flushing toilets and would have been a bit much even for a liberal like Knox.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  189. Jack D says:
    @Ron Unz
    Well, as I'd emphasized, I've probably followed this case much less than any other commenter here, which is why I decided to read the conflicting back-and-forth exchanges to get a sense of the evidence.

    I fully admit it would have been very odd for Knox to have involved herself in a brutal attack against Kercher, an attack that unexpectedly escalated to murder.

    But her alleged behavior and statements also seem very odd for a totally innocent person, as described here:

    http://www.unz.com/isteve/haven-monahan-john-doerr-and-now-amanda-knox-three-great-white-defendants-walk-in-one-week/#comment-910471

    That's why a casual observer such as myself continues to think it seems around 50-50 that she was somehow involved in the crime...

    Fortunately (for AK) the standard for criminal responsibility (at least in the US) is not – 50/50 but much higher (beyond a reasonable doubt = 90%+. Blackstone’s formulation was that it was better for 10 guilty men to go free than to see one innocent wrongly convicted.)

    There is no doubt that AK did not behave the way we would have wanted her to behave in an ideal world. No one said that she is a moral paragon or a role model for children or anything like that. One of the mistakes that we are prone to making is that we tend to assume that if someone is beautiful on the outside that this corresponds to some inner beauty as well. AK appears to be far from a beautiful person on the inside. Our decayed society does not produce a lot of people possessed of great inner strength or character. She is just you mint issue SWPL 21st century Generation Y vegan with all the weaknesses that implies. But, whatever negative things you can say about those people, they are not prone to stabbing others. That is the province of Africans like Guede. There is a big difference between acting weirdly ( though weirdness is somewhat in the eye of the beholder) and killing someone. I would convict her of being a weirdo but not of murder, nor did her weirdness really correspond to the behavior of someone who was guilty and trying to cover up their crime – it was just plain strange, like that of a not very strong person who falls apart when she is put under pressure. Maybe because she was a not very strong person who was put under pressure

    We have someone who is clearly and beyond all doubt the actual murderer. I don’t see any need to invent further conspiracies or add additional murderers when the one that we have is so clearly guilty and did not need any help. If the Italian police had identified Guede as a suspect immediately after the murder then they would have left it at that and would probably never have even tried to go after Knox, but once they got it into their heads that she had somehow participated they couldn’t let it go, even if they had to keep making up totally contradictory theories as to how she was involved and even if they had to make her strange behavior seem sinister instead of just strange.

    It also seems strange to me that all the moral outrage is saved for Knox while everyone seems to be totally OK with the actual murderer , who is already out on day release.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  190. @candid_observer
    Just to put in my two cents on the Knox case -- if it's even worth that -- one thing that always bothers me about how people approach cases like this is how much weight they attach to how they perceive the affect and behavior of the accused. If someone seems not to show the expected horror, or shock, or grief, or whatever, then people will conclude that the person must be guilty, or hiding something.

    But I think that such judgements are extremely unreliable. People are likely very different when it comes to how they react under such circumstances, and intuitions about such reactions give no useful guidance. This is why it is very important to focus on forensic evidence.

    I suspect that Italians generally put great store on their intuitions, and that there may be an especially great gap between their expectations as to how innocent people should behave and emote under these circumstances and how an innocent person from a more reserved culture, such as the American culture, might actually behave and emote. (And there might even be a genetic component to those differences.)

    Knox should have broken into a ten minute aria about how heart-broken she was. The Italian cops would have thrown roses at her feet for performing grandly the appropriate emotional response.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sean
    She was taken back to the apartment the 48 hours after the body was discovered to see if any knives were missing and did actually break down; crying and shaking so severely a doctor thought she was going into shock. The same doctor stuck his fingers in her vagina during an 'examination' immediately after her arrest.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  191. D. K. says:
    @HA
    "Coulter has actually made reference to supposed biological material from Kercher on the tip of one of Sollecito’s kitchen knives (a forensic finding later discredited)."

    Whether it was discredited depends on whether you believe the pathologists who are paid by the prosecution, or the experts paid by the defense. As convinced as you apparently are, your failure to take into account that ambiguity only serves to cast suspicion on your own objectivity.


    Ann Coulter’s evidence for that is that two confused young people cannot recall securely the sequence of events in their activities over a 12 hour period and tell conflicting stories which vary with the telling.

    Hold on there: cannot recall securely? That's how you would describe what went down? Again, all you're doing is tearing your own credibility to shreds. According to the Wiki I linked to:


    "...The following day, 4 November, the Italian flatmates and Knox were summoned for further questioning. To check whether any knives were missing, they were taken to the upper flat, where Knox broke down crying and shaking...Knox was asked into the Flying Squad offices where, so she was told, Sollecito's interview was about to finish.... According to the police,..Knox was told that Sollecito, in another interview room, was no longer saying Knox had been with him all night, but was now maintaining she had left him at 9 pm to go to Le Chic, and had not returned to his apartment until 1 am...Giobbi, watching the interview from a control room, later said he heard Knox scream....Chief Detective Inspector Rita Ficarra told the trial that Knox started to cry when asked about activity on her mobile phone before it was switched off on the night of the murder...The last activity on Knox's phone on the night of the murder was a text to Le Chic's owner, Lumumba...Knox had deleted Lumumba's text from the memory of the phone. She told detectives she did not remember replying to it.The detectives looked through the phone's messages and found that Knox had replied....The interrogators showed Knox her reply to Lumumba on the display of her mobile.Anna Donnino, an interpreter for the Perugia police, told the trial that Knox had an "emotional shock" on being shown her text to Lumumba, and said: "It's him, he did it, I can feel it."

    According to the detectives, Knox told them she had met Lumumba at the basketball court at 8:30 pm, before going with him to Via della Pergola 7 where Lumumba had committed the murder, thereby implicating herself as his accomplice. Knox signed a statement, written by the police in official Italian, which said: "I have a hard time remembering those moments but Patrick had sex with Meredith, with whom he was infatuated, but I cannot remember clearly whether he threatened Meredith first. I remember confusedly that he killed her." She told Italian interrogators that she had covered her ears to drown out Kercher's screams.
     

    This was all in between being served tea and a meal. Claims that she was brutalized and beaten have likewise dissipated into thin air. In any case, you characterize that merely as "two confused young people not being able recall securely" a sequence of events? Yeah, good luck pushing that. If Coulter's credibility needs to be called into question as the result of her bias in this matter, maybe she's not the only one of whom that can be said.

    As for me, I stand by what I have already written: that the evidence against Knox -- apart from her complete lack of credibility -- does not come close to a guilty verdict, especially considering the absence of any motive. That being said, to Coulter or anyone else who finds her flaky behavior indicative of something more sinister than merely being "confused", I will nonetheless concede that their suspicions are, at the least, understandable.

    No, the knife evidence was not merely discounted by a defense witness; it was discounted by the independent DNA experts appointed by the appeals court itself:

    http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/TheKnife.html

    As for your Wiki excerpt, it is all hostile claims by the Italian authorities– none of which was recorded, at the time, for us to judge independently the veracity of their claims of what happened in their interrogation rooms. You apparently trust the police and prosecutors– even those in a notoriously corrupt society, by First World standards– to tell the truth; I, as a former attorney and psychological legal consultant, do not. Ms. Knox was presented with a “confession” written in a language that she had only just begun to learn, and was coerced into signing it. I take that piece of paper for exactly what it is worth: “NIENTE!”

    Read More
    • Replies: @HA
    "As for your Wiki excerpt, it is all hostile claims by the Italian authorities– none of which was recorded, at the time, for us to judge independently the veracity of their claims of what happened in their interrogation rooms."

    But she did admit to her mother while in jail that she had confessed (i.e. made it all up). She did not claim she simply signed some confession that presented to her. Prior claims that she was brutalized have likewise been debunked. In fact, she was being served a meal and a hot beverage at the time. Not exactly pit and the pendelum stuff. And while Italian police techniques may well be dismally untrustworthy, I think you'll agree that Knox is not the most credible source either. Maybe the Wiki account is unfair, but given what they have to work with, I understand why they would try to thread the needle between opposing accounts to the extent that it is possible.

    I therefore also understand how her caving in to whatever pressure she perceived (actually, it was more akin to collapsing like a soap bubble) seems bizarre to many. That does not mean she is guilty of murder. I am strongly of the opinion she is not (which tells you all you need to know about what I myself think of that knife evidence). But her behavior, even for an immature and airheaded woman whose mind was too full of residual THC to know what was real and what was not, remains one of the more remarkable features of this case, and I understand why many continue to regard it as deeply suspicious.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  192. @No name
    I think she had something to do with it, though I don't think she killed her or helped to kill her. Maybe she walked in on it as it was happening. She did confess and try to frame another black guy, for which she was convicted, and it's not like the Italian court system is the Afghan court system. The American media was completely on her side as well, constantly presenting her as a victim. I think you'd be hard pressed to find any news story that suggested she was guilty, much less one that presented it with a racial angle like Zimmerman.

    On a side note, I'm really unclear on the whole concept of false confessions. I can't imagine a scenario where I know that I 100% did not commit a crime but confess to it anyway. I'm sure it happens but it just seems dubious. If anyone has any data on false confessions I'd like to hear it.

    “On a side note, I’m really unclear on the whole concept of false confessions. I can’t imagine a scenario where I know that I 100% did not commit a crime but confess to it anyway. I’m sure it happens but it just seems dubious. If anyone has any data on false confessions I’d like to hear it.”

    Ok, you are a not too bright young person, a couple cops pick you up and take you down to the station just to “talk”. You know you are innocent, so you don’t lawyer up. It starts out friendly, they offer you a coke and a cigarette. Then, it turns ugly. They start with the threats. They keep you in the little room for hours upon hours. The temperature set to make you uncomfortable. You are not allowed to sleep. You are told over and over again that they KNOW you did it. They have evidence that proves you did it. You are tired, dehydrated and hungry. Your blood sugar has bottomed out. You are lucky if you don’t urinate on yourself. You are being questioned and lead by men trained in how to play mind games. Finally after 24-48 hours of this, you begin to question if maybe you did do it. Come on now, just sign this paper and you can go home.

    You weren’t officially under arrest yet, so your staying there was all “voluntary”. Of course, they never tell you that.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  193. Sean says:
    @Steve Sailer
    Knox should have broken into a ten minute aria about how heart-broken she was. The Italian cops would have thrown roses at her feet for performing grandly the appropriate emotional response.

    She was taken back to the apartment the 48 hours after the body was discovered to see if any knives were missing and did actually break down; crying and shaking so severely a doctor thought she was going into shock. The same doctor stuck his fingers in her vagina during an ‘examination’ immediately after her arrest.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  194. Jack D says:
    @D. K.
    She was a naive young co-ed from Seattle, where I lived longer than anywhere else, attending my two-time alma mater, the University of Washington, who had been in Italy for only a matter of weeks when Rudy Guede raped and murdered her roommate. The authorities supposedly found her suspicious for such incriminating behavior as doing a handstand in the hallway, while waiting to be interviewed, and for being affectionate with her new boyfriend, while the two waited outside of her apartment, then an active crime scene, along with a crowd of local ghouls.

    She was interrogated by the authorities in a foreign language that she was only beginning to learn, with no legal representation present, about a murder case. How would you like to be interrogated, without legal counsel present, in a provincial foreign city, Mr. Unz? How would you have like it as a Harvard undergraduate, rather than as a rich, middle-aged entrepreneur with social and political connections?

    As someone from a background much closer to hers than to yours, who went to Italy, at age 18, for my own brother's ordination at the Vatican, forty years ago, I would have been confused and scared shitless-- and I suspect that I have a much higher IQ than Ms. Knox, as well as having a brother, back then, who knew the Pope personally, and another one, smarter than I, who was then a criminal-defense lawyer for the United States Army Reserve!

    Most of what people now think that they know about Amanda Knox and her then-boyfriend, and especially about the former's supposedly suspicious behavior and incriminating statements, comes from the Italian police and prosecutors, as reported by the same press that you now claim to distrust about what it chooses to tell us and not tell us, and about how it chooses to tell us even that which it is willing to tell us. As a former attorney, and Italophile (I took two years of Italian, at Purdue, after my 1975 visit), I do not choose to believe their authorities; in fact, I trust them markedly less than I trust our American authorities-- which, these days, is saying quite something!

    The crux of any criminal case-- aside from confessions or eyewitness accounts (cf. my earlier comment, supra, about Drs. Kassin and Loftus)-- is a plausible narrative of why and how the crime took place. The case against Ms. Knox and S. Sollecito was a bizarre fantasy, on the face of it. If the Italian authorities had had Occam's razor at hand, they would have held it to her throat, while inviting her to sign on the dotted line-- a la Don Corleone and Luca Brasi!

    Rudy Guede had a recent history of burglaries matching the crime scene that night. He was known to carry a large knife with him during such crimes, because he had been seen so armed, during one of his burglaries. He lied about not being there, and then, when confronted with the ready proof that he was lying, he made up an absurd story about going to the bathroom, in the middle of consensual sex with the decedent, and hearing a stranger enter the apartment, followed by a struggle and the death screams of the victim. He claimed to have then left the bathroom-- without flushing, as we all know-- in time to see the killer leave the apartment, warning poor Rudy to keep quiet. Rudy then takes a powder to Germany, when he learns that he might be a suspect, and is captured carrying some of the victim's personal belongings.

    [EXPLETIVE DELETED]!!! Does it really take Sherlock Holmes to figure this one out, Mr. Unz?!?

    I agree with everything that you say, except that you need to know WHY a crime took place. In our jurisprudence (I don’t know about Italy), motive is not a necessary element of a crime that the prosecution must prove. Half the time, we have no idea WHY a certain crime was committed. Sometimes, the criminal himself doesn’t know. There are also lots of people that have ample motive for killing someone but simply haven’t done it. All the prosecutor needs to show is that you showed up at the bank and waved a gun at the teller and that’s you on that video tape. WHY you did it is really of no concern, only IF.

    If the Italian prosecutors had had real evidence against Knox and Sollecito – reliable DNA or eye witnesses or video tape or whatever, then they would not have had to try so hard making up cockamamie theories about sex parties, etc. But they didn’t so they gave us soap opera instead of proof. I could have made up ten more semi-plausible stories about WHY Knox and Sollecito conspired to kill Meredith – a drug deal gone wrong, a love triangle, she had eaten their leftover Chinese food, etc. But all of such stories are worthless without actual proof.

    Read More
    • Replies: @D. K.
    I am a former attorney, as well as an occasional legal consultant, including in criminal cases (albeit, white-collar cases, not murders); so, I am very well aware that motive is not an element of the crime that needs to be proved "beyond a reasonable doubt" in a criminal trial.

    Motive is, however, one of the three things that police detectives and other criminal investigators look for-- along with the means and the opportunity-- in order to explore a suspect's possible culpability in a crime under investigation. In fact, a plausible motive is usually the actual starting point for their identifying of possible suspects, when none has been otherwise identified.

    To a jury, a plausible motive is a very important frame for understanding the crime, and the evidence against the accused. If a defendant has no plausible motive, and such a criminal act is out of character, the amount and type of evidence needed to convince the jury to convict that defendant is going to be markedly different from that necessary to convict someone who had a strong motive for the crime, and a past consistent with what the jury would expect of such a criminal.

    Now that Robert Durst, for instance, has been largely presumed guilty, in the public imagination, of killing three people, there are attempts to tie him to other disappearances, based solely on his living in the same locations, rather than any specific evidence pointing to his being responsible, or even his knowing the missing females, at all. The presumed pattern itself has become the assumed motive, rather than anything personal about the victim, or anything specific about the known relationship between the victim and the suspect-- since there is no known relationship!

    While it is possible that Robert Durst is actually a more traditional serial killer, who gains psychological satisfaction from killing females who are total or virtual strangers, I see no evidence of that in the three murders that I believe him to be guilty of, to date.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  195. Jack D says:
    @Mr Curious
    Not "perfectly innocent" White people; they need to choose their friends more carefully!

    Guede the murderer was not their friend, nor a friend of the victim either. He had apparently seen the girls once before in the apartment of their downstairs neighbors (they knew him a little from playing pickup basketball in the park – they weren’t really his “friends” either) and took an interest in them which was not reciprocated. Knox is lucky that she was not home in addition to or instead of Meredith or she could have just as well been Guede’s victim. Knox is precisely the kind of clueless “open minded” liberal who might have lacked the judgment not to associate with lowlife blacks (she went to work for a black bar owner who failed to pay her) but she did NOT make friends with Guede. Guede was basically homeless and appeared to have a habit of not flushing toilets and would have been a bit much even for a liberal like Knox.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  196. anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    Look at the Juan Rivera- Holly Staker case in Illinois. Staker, an eleven year old babysitter was raped and murdered. Rivera was induced to sign a typewritten confession even though nothing tied him to the crime. No video of the interrogation, no notes. Later, DNA came into play and the semen belonged to someone else, not Rivera. The DNA was later tied to a murder elsewhere. The prosecutors kept re-trying him. There was also the possibility they tampered with evidence. Want to know how they tried to explain the DNA away? They said possibly the eleven year old was having consensual sex with someone else just prior to being murdered by Rivera. Yup, they actually went there.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  197. D. K. says:
    @Jack D
    I agree with everything that you say, except that you need to know WHY a crime took place. In our jurisprudence (I don't know about Italy), motive is not a necessary element of a crime that the prosecution must prove. Half the time, we have no idea WHY a certain crime was committed. Sometimes, the criminal himself doesn't know. There are also lots of people that have ample motive for killing someone but simply haven't done it. All the prosecutor needs to show is that you showed up at the bank and waved a gun at the teller and that's you on that video tape. WHY you did it is really of no concern, only IF.

    If the Italian prosecutors had had real evidence against Knox and Sollecito - reliable DNA or eye witnesses or video tape or whatever, then they would not have had to try so hard making up cockamamie theories about sex parties, etc. But they didn't so they gave us soap opera instead of proof. I could have made up ten more semi-plausible stories about WHY Knox and Sollecito conspired to kill Meredith - a drug deal gone wrong, a love triangle, she had eaten their leftover Chinese food, etc. But all of such stories are worthless without actual proof.

    I am a former attorney, as well as an occasional legal consultant, including in criminal cases (albeit, white-collar cases, not murders); so, I am very well aware that motive is not an element of the crime that needs to be proved “beyond a reasonable doubt” in a criminal trial.

    Motive is, however, one of the three things that police detectives and other criminal investigators look for– along with the means and the opportunity– in order to explore a suspect’s possible culpability in a crime under investigation. In fact, a plausible motive is usually the actual starting point for their identifying of possible suspects, when none has been otherwise identified.

    To a jury, a plausible motive is a very important frame for understanding the crime, and the evidence against the accused. If a defendant has no plausible motive, and such a criminal act is out of character, the amount and type of evidence needed to convince the jury to convict that defendant is going to be markedly different from that necessary to convict someone who had a strong motive for the crime, and a past consistent with what the jury would expect of such a criminal.

    Now that Robert Durst, for instance, has been largely presumed guilty, in the public imagination, of killing three people, there are attempts to tie him to other disappearances, based solely on his living in the same locations, rather than any specific evidence pointing to his being responsible, or even his knowing the missing females, at all. The presumed pattern itself has become the assumed motive, rather than anything personal about the victim, or anything specific about the known relationship between the victim and the suspect– since there is no known relationship!

    While it is possible that Robert Durst is actually a more traditional serial killer, who gains psychological satisfaction from killing females who are total or virtual strangers, I see no evidence of that in the three murders that I believe him to be guilty of, to date.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  198. SPMoore8 says:
    @Bill B.
    To not be a fake break-in the intruder would have had to make an almost impossibly difficult climb, open shutters, smash through a difficult Italian-style window etc. all while the victim was in the house and in sight of the road and a facing car park.

    (Pictures of that challenging climb easily Googled.
    Excellent Google Streetview of the murder house; check Perugia with Piazza Grimana then move east 20 metres.)

    And the intruder would have to do this despite much easier options for entry elsewhere.

    The prosecution case was solid. The reason why the victim's family have not been "fair-minded" is that they are absolutely convinced Knox was involved. And you can see that that knowledge is torturing them.

    The prosecution case was weak in either version. It is actually surprisingly easy to enter the window. And, remember, Guede was a black basketball player.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JL6nIkaYLs&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D8JL6nIkaYLs&app=desktop

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bill B.
    1 the professional climber is tall and unusually lithe.

    2 he uses bars to pull himself up that were fitted after the crime.

    3 the Italian girl who rented the room said she has closed the shutters making entry much more difficult.

    4 post-murder break-in by possibly souvenir hunters used other, easier entry points.

    5 to repeat the police quickly decided the break-in was fake because window glass lay atop clothes that had been thrown around to simulate a robbery (where nothing was in fact stolen).

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  199. @Bill B.
    To not be a fake break-in the intruder would have had to make an almost impossibly difficult climb, open shutters, smash through a difficult Italian-style window etc. all while the victim was in the house and in sight of the road and a facing car park.

    (Pictures of that challenging climb easily Googled.
    Excellent Google Streetview of the murder house; check Perugia with Piazza Grimana then move east 20 metres.)

    And the intruder would have to do this despite much easier options for entry elsewhere.

    The prosecution case was solid. The reason why the victim's family have not been "fair-minded" is that they are absolutely convinced Knox was involved. And you can see that that knowledge is torturing them.

    And if the Kerchers are “tortured” why aren’t they angry at Guede’s light sentence?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bill B.
    The Kircher family were but, as I explained above, Guede's light sentence was a result of Italian judicial sentencing procedures.

    In the normal course of events he would have got the maximum 30 years which was his original sentence.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  200. Corvin says:

    For God’s sake, please don’t link to mendacious anti-Knox sites operated by a bunch of anonymous loonies and/or possibly the victim’s family. Recall that Meredith’s father is a retired tabloid journalist who used to work for The Mirror and The Daily Mail and other dens of iniquity… Think of his connections and compare them with a lower-middle-class family in Seattle.

    Read the support Wiki, http://www.amandaknoxcase.com, if you want information about the case, including case files, compiled by real people, some with good PhDs, not some trolls with an agenda.

    Read about the break-in if you wish: http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/rudy-guedes-break-in/. You see, it’s not a superhuman feat and Rudy Guede had broken into at least three places before. He got caught with a knife and stolen goods two weeks before the murder – in Milan. They set him free. He was convicted of dealing in stolen goods, but that was in 2014.

    Read about the interrogation: http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/the-interrogation/. Make sure you read Knox’s recantations. She said “I got it all wrong” literally hours after her “confession”. Read and see for yourself if she’s to blame for that.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  201. Tetris says:
    @Matra
    British media coverage of this murder was a bit like the Louise Woodward case in Massachusetts back in 1997. Except then they whipped up the mob in favour of the convicted (an English nanny). Creating outrage, especially when the readers are of the same nationality as the "victim", never fails to sell newspapers. Yet where were these tabloids on Rotherham and Rochdale?

    Whoah that takes me back. The indignation in Britain over the Woodward conviction was because it was obviously based on a linguistic misunderstanding. “Popping” means hitting in the U.S. and putting in Britain.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  202. “Even Nina Burleigh thinks she’s guilty” would have been a passable sitcom joke in the mid 1990s.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  203. HA says:
    @Art Deco
    That’s how you would describe what went down? Again, all you’re doing is tearing your own credibility to shreds. According to the Wiki I linked to:

    Cute.

    Cute.

    Hmm…. Wikipedia vs. your citation-free assertions? Which to choose, which to choose… In any case, if that’s the extent of your rebuttal, it’s close enough to a concession for me.

    As for Coulter, and your continuing assertion that I find her condemnation reasonable, I will reiterate my previous observation that her primary mistake was believing the clean-up/bleach story. Had that not been debunked, it would have explained why Guede’s DNA was so pervasive, whereas Knox’s or Sollecito’s were absent and would have been the nail in the coffin of the defense. Given that the alleged bleach purchase turned out to be more misinformation (along the lines of how Knox was brutalized into confessing) Coulter should indeed revise her condemnation in light of that.

    But no bleach (or lack thereof) washes out Knox’s bizarre confession/accusation, which you euphemistically refer to as a “not being able recall securely a sequence of events.” That being the case, I suggest you remedy your own howlers first, before taking down Coulter.

    You banging Coulter?

    Ah, keeping it classy, I see. Speaking of which, hats off for not calling her or some of the many other women you have a beef with a “broad” this time around. Unusual self-restraint on your behalf.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art Deco
    Hmm…. Wikipedia vs. your citation-free assertions? Which to choose, which to choose… In any case, if that’s the extent of your rebuttal, it’s close enough to a concession for me.

    You can consult the writings of Candace Dempsey, among others.

    If it pleases you to fancy you've won whatever argument you're advancing, please yourself. You've done enough backing and filling I can no longer figure out just what your argument is.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  204. HA says:
    @D. K.
    No, the knife evidence was not merely discounted by a defense witness; it was discounted by the independent DNA experts appointed by the appeals court itself:

    http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/TheKnife.html

    As for your Wiki excerpt, it is all hostile claims by the Italian authorities-- none of which was recorded, at the time, for us to judge independently the veracity of their claims of what happened in their interrogation rooms. You apparently trust the police and prosecutors-- even those in a notoriously corrupt society, by First World standards-- to tell the truth; I, as a former attorney and psychological legal consultant, do not. Ms. Knox was presented with a "confession" written in a language that she had only just begun to learn, and was coerced into signing it. I take that piece of paper for exactly what it is worth: "NIENTE!"

    “As for your Wiki excerpt, it is all hostile claims by the Italian authorities– none of which was recorded, at the time, for us to judge independently the veracity of their claims of what happened in their interrogation rooms.”

    But she did admit to her mother while in jail that she had confessed (i.e. made it all up). She did not claim she simply signed some confession that presented to her. Prior claims that she was brutalized have likewise been debunked. In fact, she was being served a meal and a hot beverage at the time. Not exactly pit and the pendelum stuff. And while Italian police techniques may well be dismally untrustworthy, I think you’ll agree that Knox is not the most credible source either. Maybe the Wiki account is unfair, but given what they have to work with, I understand why they would try to thread the needle between opposing accounts to the extent that it is possible.

    I therefore also understand how her caving in to whatever pressure she perceived (actually, it was more akin to collapsing like a soap bubble) seems bizarre to many. That does not mean she is guilty of murder. I am strongly of the opinion she is not (which tells you all you need to know about what I myself think of that knife evidence). But her behavior, even for an immature and airheaded woman whose mind was too full of residual THC to know what was real and what was not, remains one of the more remarkable features of this case, and I understand why many continue to regard it as deeply suspicious.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack D

    an immature and airheaded woman whose mind was too full of residual THC to know what was real and what was not,

     

    I think that about sums her up and is a good enough explanation for her behavior for me. As Steve said, if she had sung an aria professing her undying love for Meredith and wailed with grief instead of doing handstands and necking with Sollecito, the Italian police would have bought flowers for the poor little thing instead of arresting her, even if she had been as guilty as hell. While in fact, her post crime demeanor had absolutely nothing to do with her guilt or innocence - this was just her airheaded way of dealing with the unprecedented stress - before this the worst thing that probably ever happened to her is that her goldfish died. Have you ever had a situation where your computer crashed and starts spewing out garbage on the screen because the CPU overheated - that's basically what happened to her brain. This is what people mean when they say "I wasn't thinking straight".
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  205. Art Deco says: • Website
    @HA
    Cute.

    Hmm.... Wikipedia vs. your citation-free assertions? Which to choose, which to choose... In any case, if that's the extent of your rebuttal, it's close enough to a concession for me.

    As for Coulter, and your continuing assertion that I find her condemnation reasonable, I will reiterate my previous observation that her primary mistake was believing the clean-up/bleach story. Had that not been debunked, it would have explained why Guede's DNA was so pervasive, whereas Knox's or Sollecito's were absent and would have been the nail in the coffin of the defense. Given that the alleged bleach purchase turned out to be more misinformation (along the lines of how Knox was brutalized into confessing) Coulter should indeed revise her condemnation in light of that.

    But no bleach (or lack thereof) washes out Knox's bizarre confession/accusation, which you euphemistically refer to as a "not being able recall securely a sequence of events." That being the case, I suggest you remedy your own howlers first, before taking down Coulter.

    You banging Coulter?

    Ah, keeping it classy, I see. Speaking of which, hats off for not calling her or some of the many other women you have a beef with a "broad" this time around. Unusual self-restraint on your behalf.

    Hmm…. Wikipedia vs. your citation-free assertions? Which to choose, which to choose… In any case, if that’s the extent of your rebuttal, it’s close enough to a concession for me.

    You can consult the writings of Candace Dempsey, among others.

    If it pleases you to fancy you’ve won whatever argument you’re advancing, please yourself. You’ve done enough backing and filling I can no longer figure out just what your argument is.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  206. Marty T says:
    @Perspective
    Be careful though, some women over play the victim role. My aunt, sadly, has played the damsel in distress role numerous times. Men fall for her charm, and then end up being verbally and mentally abused by her. She then ends the relationship and tells her new boyfriend that she is a 'battered woman'.

    That would never work on me. I want a girl who can stand up for herself.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  207. Art Deco says: • Website

    But no bleach (or lack thereof) washes out Knox’s bizarre confession/accusation, which you euphemistically refer to as a “not being able recall securely a sequence of events.” That being the case, I suggest you remedy your own howlers first, before taking down Coulter.

    I have no howlers to remedy, your assertions notwithstanding.

    False confessions are unremarkable; a non-zero share of people respond to interrogation techniques this way. The forensic evidence is what is telling (or what was left of it after the Perugia Keystone Kops were done wth it).

    Read More
    • Replies: @HA
    "False confessions are unremarkable;..."

    Given the lack of any psychiatric illness in Knox's past, many would say this one was. It's one thing to hear the police are looking for a black guy and then to think of your boss who kept hitting on Kercher, and suspect that maybe he's the one they might be after. But to then, in a matter of minutes, place yourself one wall away from the scene of the crime holding your ears to drown out Kercher's death-screams -- that's hardly "unremarkable", and characterizing it merely a "misremembered sequence of events" is a howler indeed.

    In light of Knox's odd behavior, I sympathize with those who thought she was guilty (and indeed, who still do), even as I also see, after the smoke has cleared, that the physical evidence (and lack of any motive or violent past history) indicates she is innocent of killing Kercher. She is still a flake, and she is still responsible for letting Lumumba sit in jail for weeks, but innocent of murder. If being able to balance all those concepts is difficult for you, to the extent you regard it as backing and filling, it explains a lot, and is probably as good a reason as any to leave it at that.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  208. Ron Unz says:
    @D. K.
    She was a naive young co-ed from Seattle, where I lived longer than anywhere else, attending my two-time alma mater, the University of Washington, who had been in Italy for only a matter of weeks when Rudy Guede raped and murdered her roommate. The authorities supposedly found her suspicious for such incriminating behavior as doing a handstand in the hallway, while waiting to be interviewed, and for being affectionate with her new boyfriend, while the two waited outside of her apartment, then an active crime scene, along with a crowd of local ghouls.

    She was interrogated by the authorities in a foreign language that she was only beginning to learn, with no legal representation present, about a murder case. How would you like to be interrogated, without legal counsel present, in a provincial foreign city, Mr. Unz? How would you have like it as a Harvard undergraduate, rather than as a rich, middle-aged entrepreneur with social and political connections?

    As someone from a background much closer to hers than to yours, who went to Italy, at age 18, for my own brother's ordination at the Vatican, forty years ago, I would have been confused and scared shitless-- and I suspect that I have a much higher IQ than Ms. Knox, as well as having a brother, back then, who knew the Pope personally, and another one, smarter than I, who was then a criminal-defense lawyer for the United States Army Reserve!

    Most of what people now think that they know about Amanda Knox and her then-boyfriend, and especially about the former's supposedly suspicious behavior and incriminating statements, comes from the Italian police and prosecutors, as reported by the same press that you now claim to distrust about what it chooses to tell us and not tell us, and about how it chooses to tell us even that which it is willing to tell us. As a former attorney, and Italophile (I took two years of Italian, at Purdue, after my 1975 visit), I do not choose to believe their authorities; in fact, I trust them markedly less than I trust our American authorities-- which, these days, is saying quite something!

    The crux of any criminal case-- aside from confessions or eyewitness accounts (cf. my earlier comment, supra, about Drs. Kassin and Loftus)-- is a plausible narrative of why and how the crime took place. The case against Ms. Knox and S. Sollecito was a bizarre fantasy, on the face of it. If the Italian authorities had had Occam's razor at hand, they would have held it to her throat, while inviting her to sign on the dotted line-- a la Don Corleone and Luca Brasi!

    Rudy Guede had a recent history of burglaries matching the crime scene that night. He was known to carry a large knife with him during such crimes, because he had been seen so armed, during one of his burglaries. He lied about not being there, and then, when confronted with the ready proof that he was lying, he made up an absurd story about going to the bathroom, in the middle of consensual sex with the decedent, and hearing a stranger enter the apartment, followed by a struggle and the death screams of the victim. He claimed to have then left the bathroom-- without flushing, as we all know-- in time to see the killer leave the apartment, warning poor Rudy to keep quiet. Rudy then takes a powder to Germany, when he learns that he might be a suspect, and is captured carrying some of the victim's personal belongings.

    [EXPLETIVE DELETED]!!! Does it really take Sherlock Holmes to figure this one out, Mr. Unz?!?

    Most of what people now think that they know about Amanda Knox and her then-boyfriend, and especially about the former’s supposedly suspicious behavior and incriminating statements, comes from the Italian police and prosecutors, as reported by the same press that you now claim to distrust about what it chooses to tell us and not tell us, and about how it chooses to tell us even that which it is willing to tell us. As a former attorney, and Italophile (I took two years of Italian, at Purdue, after my 1975 visit), I do not choose to believe their authorities.

    Well, as you say, I tend to be cautious in believing everything the MSM tells us. But I think massive disinformation is generally due to the unfortunate influence of various powerful individuals or groups. It’s just not clear to me who would have a vested interest in railroading Ms. Knox and her Italian boyfriend.

    You might certainly be correct that the various statements and actions of Knox that seemed so suspicious to me (some of which I pointed to above) came from the Italian police, and were whole-cloth inventions intended to help convict her. Naturally, if they were all fictional, my suspicions were groundless. It’s obviously very difficult for someone like me to decide without detailed investigation.

    However, I think your important question of motive also cuts the other way. I grant that Knox and her boyfriend had no apparent motive for brutalizing Kercher, which accidentally led to her murder. But I also can’t think of any reason the Italian police would want to frame some American girl and her straight-arrow Italian boyfriend in a brutal sex-murder; offhand, they’d seem about the least likely suspects imaginable. Supposedly, the police claim that Knox falsely implicated some local black guy as the rapist, who was then thrown in jail, while the true rapist turned out to be a different local black guy, so there doesn’t even seem to be any real racial angle.

    The newspapers seem to say that the overwhelming majority of Americans think Knox is innocent, while equally large majorities of Italians and British think she’s guilty. I doubt that ordinary Italians have an overly inflated opinion of the perfect credibility of their own police or media, so I wonder why they’d be so sure that a “nice Italian boy” was somehow involved in the brutal killing.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack D
    The British (and Italian) tabloid media certainly had a vested interest in Knox being guilty - they sold a ton of papers because of this case. Prosecutors just hate to be proven wrong and to lose face. Once they have clamped their jaws around you they are very reluctant to let go - it makes them look like incompetent fools, which they often are, but nobody wants to be seen that way. As someone else said, they are sometimes willing to literally let you die (be executed) if necessary rather than allowing themselves to look bad. If Guede had been identified as a suspect immediately (and Knox shares some of the blame by throwing suspicion on the wrong black man) I think that would have been that and neither the prosecutor nor the press would have looked for more suspects. But by the time they found Guede they were already in for a dime on their case against Knox and Sollecito, so they stayed in for the dollar.
    , @D. K.
    Some would call the differing national views a result of "the power of the press"-- with the American press, in this case, being late to the game, compared to those in both Italy and Britain, and thus coming in at a different point in the unfolding of these events, with a markedly differing viewpoint, as a result.

    In psychology, we talk about the primacy effect. Which is a more powerful factor: primacy or recency? In a case like this one, I believe that primacy is far more powerful and more important, for a very understandable reason: once a person believes that a plausible case has been stated, he tends to decide what his personal belief about the case is; and, once he has decided, he is very reticent to change his original conclusion-- if not downright impervious to change.

    Since the case was a cause celebre in Italy and Britain, from the get go, people there, including reporters, were impressed with the stunning arrests of the roommate and her boyfriend, which took place long before Rudy Guede was identified and apprehended. Already having concluded that Amanda Knox and her boyfriend were involved, it became a matter of integrating the three defendants into a common plan, not reevaluating if the original arrests were mistaken. In America, where the case was much later in becoming headline news, the facts on the ground had changed enough to allow for the alternate explanation: that Rudy Guede alone was the actual perpetrator, while Knox and her boyfriend had been arrested in error.

    Why would the local authorities pick on the implausible suspects of Knox and her boyfriend, and concoct such a bizarre theory of the crime? Because those authorities were in need of some quick arrests, to make Perugia look like a safe place to visit, both for its tourists and its many exchange students, and to make its local police look competent; under the exigencies of the circumstances, Knox and her boyfriend made themselves readily available to play the roles of uniquely perverted villains-- before the mundane villain made his belated appearance!

    , @Sean

    IT would be grossly unfair to suggest all Italians supported this modern-day burning of the American witch, but observers who had a sense that an injustice was being done could do little, and few dared speak out. One reason is that in Italy, it is a crime to “insult” public officials or damage the reputation of a magistrate. In the Knox case, the police and prosecution filed numerous slander suits against groups and individuals, including journalists and the Knox and Sollecito families.

    The police also arrested local blogger and journalist Frank Sfarzo, who said they roughed him up. Under the honor and slander laws, the prosecutor charged Sfarzo and at least three publications or journalists who have challenged the law enforcement version of the story. Prosecutor Mignini had an Italian journalist thrown in jail for investigating his conclusions in another case—leading an American writer covering that story to flee Italy for fear he’d be arrested.

    Italian journalists and foreign reporters working in Italy heed these laws, which is why an annual ranking of press freedom by nation puts Italy in the “partly free” category (along with Mali and Algeria)—the only Western European country to fall into that category.

     

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  209. Jack D says:
    @HA
    "As for your Wiki excerpt, it is all hostile claims by the Italian authorities– none of which was recorded, at the time, for us to judge independently the veracity of their claims of what happened in their interrogation rooms."

    But she did admit to her mother while in jail that she had confessed (i.e. made it all up). She did not claim she simply signed some confession that presented to her. Prior claims that she was brutalized have likewise been debunked. In fact, she was being served a meal and a hot beverage at the time. Not exactly pit and the pendelum stuff. And while Italian police techniques may well be dismally untrustworthy, I think you'll agree that Knox is not the most credible source either. Maybe the Wiki account is unfair, but given what they have to work with, I understand why they would try to thread the needle between opposing accounts to the extent that it is possible.

    I therefore also understand how her caving in to whatever pressure she perceived (actually, it was more akin to collapsing like a soap bubble) seems bizarre to many. That does not mean she is guilty of murder. I am strongly of the opinion she is not (which tells you all you need to know about what I myself think of that knife evidence). But her behavior, even for an immature and airheaded woman whose mind was too full of residual THC to know what was real and what was not, remains one of the more remarkable features of this case, and I understand why many continue to regard it as deeply suspicious.

    an immature and airheaded woman whose mind was too full of residual THC to know what was real and what was not,

    I think that about sums her up and is a good enough explanation for her behavior for me. As Steve said, if she had sung an aria professing her undying love for Meredith and wailed with grief instead of doing handstands and necking with Sollecito, the Italian police would have bought flowers for the poor little thing instead of arresting her, even if she had been as guilty as hell. While in fact, her post crime demeanor had absolutely nothing to do with her guilt or innocence – this was just her airheaded way of dealing with the unprecedented stress – before this the worst thing that probably ever happened to her is that her goldfish died. Have you ever had a situation where your computer crashed and starts spewing out garbage on the screen because the CPU overheated – that’s basically what happened to her brain. This is what people mean when they say “I wasn’t thinking straight”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @HA
    I agree with that, and being hauled into the principal's office for any reason is stressful, let alone a police precinct. I don't know what I would do in that instance, but I think anyone who breaks down in the bizarre way she did is going to have to deal with some lingering suspicions long after whatever verdict is delivered. Given the lack of motive and real evidence, that confession/accusation must indeed have been one big neural CPU blip, as you say, but wow, what a crazy blip it was.

    I also feel genuine sympathy for the rest of the Knox and Sollecito families who had to pony up big for the defense and the PR. Even if my child were a pot-head and a ditz, I, too, would do everything I could to defend him and her.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  210. Art Deco says: • Website
    @LondonBob
    The Kerchers have certainly come across very badly.

    A friend's father was a very senior judge, he said the reaction of the defendant's lawyer was the best tell. Louise Woodward's looked rather unhappy at the not guilty, Sollecito's leapt into the arms of Knox's.

    Should never have come to trial but Italy's police and justice system leave a lot to be desired.

    Louise Woodward’s looked rather unhappy at the not guilty,

    She was found guilty. The judge reduced the charges at a subsequent hearing and reduced her sentence to time served.

    Read More
    • Replies: @LondonBob
    Yes that's it, he looked very non plussed on losing and did not console her.

    Seem to remember the Italian prosecutor had form with bizarre satanic sex orgy allegations. Knox was just his latest effort.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  211. Jack D says:
    @Ron Unz

    Most of what people now think that they know about Amanda Knox and her then-boyfriend, and especially about the former’s supposedly suspicious behavior and incriminating statements, comes from the Italian police and prosecutors, as reported by the same press that you now claim to distrust about what it chooses to tell us and not tell us, and about how it chooses to tell us even that which it is willing to tell us. As a former attorney, and Italophile (I took two years of Italian, at Purdue, after my 1975 visit), I do not choose to believe their authorities.
     
    Well, as you say, I tend to be cautious in believing everything the MSM tells us. But I think massive disinformation is generally due to the unfortunate influence of various powerful individuals or groups. It's just not clear to me who would have a vested interest in railroading Ms. Knox and her Italian boyfriend.

    You might certainly be correct that the various statements and actions of Knox that seemed so suspicious to me (some of which I pointed to above) came from the Italian police, and were whole-cloth inventions intended to help convict her. Naturally, if they were all fictional, my suspicions were groundless. It's obviously very difficult for someone like me to decide without detailed investigation.

    However, I think your important question of motive also cuts the other way. I grant that Knox and her boyfriend had no apparent motive for brutalizing Kercher, which accidentally led to her murder. But I also can't think of any reason the Italian police would want to frame some American girl and her straight-arrow Italian boyfriend in a brutal sex-murder; offhand, they'd seem about the least likely suspects imaginable. Supposedly, the police claim that Knox falsely implicated some local black guy as the rapist, who was then thrown in jail, while the true rapist turned out to be a different local black guy, so there doesn't even seem to be any real racial angle.

    The newspapers seem to say that the overwhelming majority of Americans think Knox is innocent, while equally large majorities of Italians and British think she's guilty. I doubt that ordinary Italians have an overly inflated opinion of the perfect credibility of their own police or media, so I wonder why they'd be so sure that a "nice Italian boy" was somehow involved in the brutal killing.

    The British (and Italian) tabloid media certainly had a vested interest in Knox being guilty – they sold a ton of papers because of this case. Prosecutors just hate to be proven wrong and to lose face. Once they have clamped their jaws around you they are very reluctant to let go – it makes them look like incompetent fools, which they often are, but nobody wants to be seen that way. As someone else said, they are sometimes willing to literally let you die (be executed) if necessary rather than allowing themselves to look bad. If Guede had been identified as a suspect immediately (and Knox shares some of the blame by throwing suspicion on the wrong black man) I think that would have been that and neither the prosecutor nor the press would have looked for more suspects. But by the time they found Guede they were already in for a dime on their case against Knox and Sollecito, so they stayed in for the dollar.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art Deco
    Aye, in for a dime, in for a dollar. The police defend their conduct and then the prosecutors defend theirs. As for the Italian public, their police looked incompetent if not crooked in front of a reading public abroad. Some postures are just artifice driven by pride. Some things opinion surveys do not limn very well.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  212. Art Deco says: • Website
    @Jack D
    The British (and Italian) tabloid media certainly had a vested interest in Knox being guilty - they sold a ton of papers because of this case. Prosecutors just hate to be proven wrong and to lose face. Once they have clamped their jaws around you they are very reluctant to let go - it makes them look like incompetent fools, which they often are, but nobody wants to be seen that way. As someone else said, they are sometimes willing to literally let you die (be executed) if necessary rather than allowing themselves to look bad. If Guede had been identified as a suspect immediately (and Knox shares some of the blame by throwing suspicion on the wrong black man) I think that would have been that and neither the prosecutor nor the press would have looked for more suspects. But by the time they found Guede they were already in for a dime on their case against Knox and Sollecito, so they stayed in for the dollar.

    Aye, in for a dime, in for a dollar. The police defend their conduct and then the prosecutors defend theirs. As for the Italian public, their police looked incompetent if not crooked in front of a reading public abroad. Some postures are just artifice driven by pride. Some things opinion surveys do not limn very well.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  213. I think if we watch “Twilight: Breaking Dawn” it all will become clear.

    Yeah, just f*ing with you guys.

    Ron – listen – have you had to deal with a 20 something lately? I drove for UBER for a while, so, alas, I was exposed to it. And, unlike a lot of iStevers’, Hell has come to FrogTown for me. I am not STEM, just heavily right brained, so I get to hang out of Friday night at a package store run by some dark skinned Hindus whilst a bunch a Mike Browns wannabe’s do their stuff, whilst I grip my pistol and pray that I am not subject to, and don’t get subjected to, a question and answer period about the MOST IMPORTANT TOWN IN THE WORLD!!!

    If I fail that test, it is go time.

    Anyway, Millennials are bovine in their mind set; if you say something outside of the narrative they freeze like a deer in headlights, or some poacher hitting ‘em with a flashlight like, say, my great uncle ; R.I.P., Ike. Anyway, AK’s weird affect, not so much Adam Lanza, more likely than not a a clueless 20 something getting a taste of how the real world works.

    Also – AK – if she has a kid. Let’s face it – we’re looking at the anti- christ.

    Don’t cry for me Argentina.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  214. Just a thought:

    An idea based on an old Steve Sailer post about Raymond Chandler.

    Could Knox’s strange statements and behavior be because she was afraid the police would find out about drugs or possible drug dealing by her friends?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Yes, my old idea was that in Philip Marlowe novels, murder investigations tend to shine a spotlight on a lot of non-murderous suspects with something to hide.

    That happened to Rep. Gary Condit, for example, when his intern got murdered by some illegal alien rapist while jogging in the park. It soon came out that the dead girl had been having an affair with the Congressman. Then the whole world got very excited over the idea that Condit was the murderer, just look at him, you can tell by the expression on his face.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  215. @Name Withheld
    Just a thought:


    An idea based on an old Steve Sailer post about Raymond Chandler.

    Could Knox's strange statements and behavior be because she was afraid the police would find out about drugs or possible drug dealing by her friends?

    Yes, my old idea was that in Philip Marlowe novels, murder investigations tend to shine a spotlight on a lot of non-murderous suspects with something to hide.

    That happened to Rep. Gary Condit, for example, when his intern got murdered by some illegal alien rapist while jogging in the park. It soon came out that the dead girl had been having an affair with the Congressman. Then the whole world got very excited over the idea that Condit was the murderer, just look at him, you can tell by the expression on his face.

    Read More
    • Replies: @D. K.
    Steve, there is not a shred of credible evidence that the illegal alien Ingmar Guandique, a native of El Salvador, ever laid eyes on Gary Condit's mistress, alive or dead!

    A Jewess at "The Washington Post" talked her bosses into letting her and a couple of other reporters do a review of the unsolved case-- presumed to be one of rape and murder, although the skeletal remains found in Rock Creek Park failed to definitively prove either-- of Chandra Levy. (Levy was a former federal intern, but not a congressional intern. Gary Condit was actually her Congressman, and she was introduced to him as one of his constituents, I believe by one of his actual interns.)

    Their series appeared in the summer of 2008. The Jewess, Sari Horwitz, who later was suspended by the paper for plagiarizing news accounts from reporters from elsewhere in the country, explicitly stated, early on in the series, that she saw a younger version of herself in Chandra Levy. In other words, Horwitz was acting not as a journalist, seeking public knowledge, but as a Jewish avenger, seeking blood vengence against whatever goy was responsible.

    Since that was not possible, she satisfied herself with fingering an innocent young man whom the federal authorities had long had in custody, but whom they also had discounted, for virtually the same amount of time, of having any involvement in the Chandra Levy death.

    Ingmar Guandique first had been served up as a possible suspect while in the local lockup, a few months into the Levy-Condit scandal, in the summer of 2001. The fellow inmate who had attempted to serve him up knew that there were large rewards available in the Levy missing-person case (her remains were discovered just over a year after she disappeared), and so claimed that Guandique had confessed to him. Guandique passed an FBI polygraph, however, while his accuser did not.

    The star witness in the Horwitz vendetta was a retired U.S. Park Service Police detective, who, in 2008, was double-dipping, still working in Rock Creek Park, while collecting his pension from the federal government. He had interviewed Guandique, in the park, in the summer of 2001, when he was apprehended after the second of his failed muggings in the park. He had been present when Guandique was interviewed and polygraphed by the FBI, yet said nothing about Guandique's alleged statement about seeing Chandra Levy in the park, in the spring. He waited until at least 2007, when Sari Horwitz came calling.

    Because of Horwitz' crusade against Guandique, based largely on the retired detective's wholly unsupported and greatly belated claim, the Levy case was reopened, and Guandique was indicted. There was zero forensic evidence tying him to the victim or the crime scene. The Feds used another stoolie to whom Guandique had supposedly confessed, even though their third cellmate took the stand and denied the claim. Two other stoolies were listed as witnesses, but neither was called to testify.

    Most tellingly, Sari Horwitz' star witness, the double-dipping former detective, was never called to repeat under oath his incredible claim that Guandique had admitted to him, and two others (never named by Horwitz!), that he had seen Levy in the park, in the spring of 2001. What the Department of Justice thought of the detective's veracity is there for all to see, in what the jurors could not!

    The case against Ingmar Guandique boiled down to a stoolie's highly dubious-- and flatly contradicted-- claim of a jailhouse confession, and the recounting of his two muggings, later in 2001. In neither case did he physically harm, nor sexually assault his female victim. He failed, both times, in his goal of stealing their Walkmen-type devices or jewelry, and, both times, simply ran away, when resisted, despite his being armed with a knife.

    , @HA
    "Yes, my old idea was that in Philip Marlowe novels, murder investigations tend to shine a spotlight on a lot of non-murderous suspects with something to hide.

    "Misdirected guilt" is now being claimed as the reason that Cameron Todd Willingham was sentenced to death and executed after being convicted of setting the house fire that killed his family. Subsequently, more modern forensic analysis indicates the fire actually started by accident.

    Willingham, who seemed obviously guilt-stricken to the investigators, was, according to his defenders, actually guilt-ridden over not having the courage/foolhardiness to go into a raging house fire and rescue his family. From a rational perspective, he had no reason to feel guilty about that. But that guilty demeanor, along with his low intelligence and tattooed metal-head exterior, convinced investigators and jurors that he should be put to death.

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/death-by-fire/
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  216. HA says:
    @Art Deco
    But no bleach (or lack thereof) washes out Knox’s bizarre confession/accusation, which you euphemistically refer to as a “not being able recall securely a sequence of events.” That being the case, I suggest you remedy your own howlers first, before taking down Coulter.

    I have no howlers to remedy, your assertions notwithstanding.

    False confessions are unremarkable; a non-zero share of people respond to interrogation techniques this way. The forensic evidence is what is telling (or what was left of it after the Perugia Keystone Kops were done wth it).

    “False confessions are unremarkable;…”

    Given the lack of any psychiatric illness in Knox’s past, many would say this one was. It’s one thing to hear the police are looking for a black guy and then to think of your boss who kept hitting on Kercher, and suspect that maybe he’s the one they might be after. But to then, in a matter of minutes, place yourself one wall away from the scene of the crime holding your ears to drown out Kercher’s death-screams — that’s hardly “unremarkable”, and characterizing it merely a “misremembered sequence of events” is a howler indeed.

    In light of Knox’s odd behavior, I sympathize with those who thought she was guilty (and indeed, who still do), even as I also see, after the smoke has cleared, that the physical evidence (and lack of any motive or violent past history) indicates she is innocent of killing Kercher. She is still a flake, and she is still responsible for letting Lumumba sit in jail for weeks, but innocent of murder. If being able to balance all those concepts is difficult for you, to the extent you regard it as backing and filling, it explains a lot, and is probably as good a reason as any to leave it at that.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art Deco
    Given the lack of any psychiatric illness in Knox’s past, many would say this one was.

    And these many would be wrong too.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  217. The social justice warriors at Wikipedia have the Rudy Guede search forwarding to the M. Kircher page!

    Guede is a notorious murderer but the skimpy info on the fwd’ed page provides the reader with few details of his interesting life. What bullish*t!

    Do a search elsewhere and read Rudy’s multiple insane conflicting accounts of what happened that night. The entire affair is a tawdry episode in the life of a very dumb criminal.

    Prosecutor Mignini sure did tart it up!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  218. HA says:
    @Jack D

    an immature and airheaded woman whose mind was too full of residual THC to know what was real and what was not,

     

    I think that about sums her up and is a good enough explanation for her behavior for me. As Steve said, if she had sung an aria professing her undying love for Meredith and wailed with grief instead of doing handstands and necking with Sollecito, the Italian police would have bought flowers for the poor little thing instead of arresting her, even if she had been as guilty as hell. While in fact, her post crime demeanor had absolutely nothing to do with her guilt or innocence - this was just her airheaded way of dealing with the unprecedented stress - before this the worst thing that probably ever happened to her is that her goldfish died. Have you ever had a situation where your computer crashed and starts spewing out garbage on the screen because the CPU overheated - that's basically what happened to her brain. This is what people mean when they say "I wasn't thinking straight".

    I agree with that, and being hauled into the principal’s office for any reason is stressful, let alone a police precinct. I don’t know what I would do in that instance, but I think anyone who breaks down in the bizarre way she did is going to have to deal with some lingering suspicions long after whatever verdict is delivered. Given the lack of motive and real evidence, that confession/accusation must indeed have been one big neural CPU blip, as you say, but wow, what a crazy blip it was.

    I also feel genuine sympathy for the rest of the Knox and Sollecito families who had to pony up big for the defense and the PR. Even if my child were a pot-head and a ditz, I, too, would do everything I could to defend him and her.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  219. Danindc says:
    @D. K.
    She was a naive young co-ed from Seattle, where I lived longer than anywhere else, attending my two-time alma mater, the University of Washington, who had been in Italy for only a matter of weeks when Rudy Guede raped and murdered her roommate. The authorities supposedly found her suspicious for such incriminating behavior as doing a handstand in the hallway, while waiting to be interviewed, and for being affectionate with her new boyfriend, while the two waited outside of her apartment, then an active crime scene, along with a crowd of local ghouls.

    She was interrogated by the authorities in a foreign language that she was only beginning to learn, with no legal representation present, about a murder case. How would you like to be interrogated, without legal counsel present, in a provincial foreign city, Mr. Unz? How would you have like it as a Harvard undergraduate, rather than as a rich, middle-aged entrepreneur with social and political connections?

    As someone from a background much closer to hers than to yours, who went to Italy, at age 18, for my own brother's ordination at the Vatican, forty years ago, I would have been confused and scared shitless-- and I suspect that I have a much higher IQ than Ms. Knox, as well as having a brother, back then, who knew the Pope personally, and another one, smarter than I, who was then a criminal-defense lawyer for the United States Army Reserve!

    Most of what people now think that they know about Amanda Knox and her then-boyfriend, and especially about the former's supposedly suspicious behavior and incriminating statements, comes from the Italian police and prosecutors, as reported by the same press that you now claim to distrust about what it chooses to tell us and not tell us, and about how it chooses to tell us even that which it is willing to tell us. As a former attorney, and Italophile (I took two years of Italian, at Purdue, after my 1975 visit), I do not choose to believe their authorities; in fact, I trust them markedly less than I trust our American authorities-- which, these days, is saying quite something!

    The crux of any criminal case-- aside from confessions or eyewitness accounts (cf. my earlier comment, supra, about Drs. Kassin and Loftus)-- is a plausible narrative of why and how the crime took place. The case against Ms. Knox and S. Sollecito was a bizarre fantasy, on the face of it. If the Italian authorities had had Occam's razor at hand, they would have held it to her throat, while inviting her to sign on the dotted line-- a la Don Corleone and Luca Brasi!

    Rudy Guede had a recent history of burglaries matching the crime scene that night. He was known to carry a large knife with him during such crimes, because he had been seen so armed, during one of his burglaries. He lied about not being there, and then, when confronted with the ready proof that he was lying, he made up an absurd story about going to the bathroom, in the middle of consensual sex with the decedent, and hearing a stranger enter the apartment, followed by a struggle and the death screams of the victim. He claimed to have then left the bathroom-- without flushing, as we all know-- in time to see the killer leave the apartment, warning poor Rudy to keep quiet. Rudy then takes a powder to Germany, when he learns that he might be a suspect, and is captured carrying some of the victim's personal belongings.

    [EXPLETIVE DELETED]!!! Does it really take Sherlock Holmes to figure this one out, Mr. Unz?!?

    great post and great thread by the way. Thanks to all parties – fascinating case esp when smart people disagree. This post sealed it for me though. Not guilty.

    Read More
    • Replies: @D. K.
    Thanks for the compliment!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  220. Truth says:
    @D. K.
    She was a naive young co-ed from Seattle, where I lived longer than anywhere else, attending my two-time alma mater, the University of Washington, who had been in Italy for only a matter of weeks when Rudy Guede raped and murdered her roommate. The authorities supposedly found her suspicious for such incriminating behavior as doing a handstand in the hallway, while waiting to be interviewed, and for being affectionate with her new boyfriend, while the two waited outside of her apartment, then an active crime scene, along with a crowd of local ghouls.

    She was interrogated by the authorities in a foreign language that she was only beginning to learn, with no legal representation present, about a murder case. How would you like to be interrogated, without legal counsel present, in a provincial foreign city, Mr. Unz? How would you have like it as a Harvard undergraduate, rather than as a rich, middle-aged entrepreneur with social and political connections?

    As someone from a background much closer to hers than to yours, who went to Italy, at age 18, for my own brother's ordination at the Vatican, forty years ago, I would have been confused and scared shitless-- and I suspect that I have a much higher IQ than Ms. Knox, as well as having a brother, back then, who knew the Pope personally, and another one, smarter than I, who was then a criminal-defense lawyer for the United States Army Reserve!

    Most of what people now think that they know about Amanda Knox and her then-boyfriend, and especially about the former's supposedly suspicious behavior and incriminating statements, comes from the Italian police and prosecutors, as reported by the same press that you now claim to distrust about what it chooses to tell us and not tell us, and about how it chooses to tell us even that which it is willing to tell us. As a former attorney, and Italophile (I took two years of Italian, at Purdue, after my 1975 visit), I do not choose to believe their authorities; in fact, I trust them markedly less than I trust our American authorities-- which, these days, is saying quite something!

    The crux of any criminal case-- aside from confessions or eyewitness accounts (cf. my earlier comment, supra, about Drs. Kassin and Loftus)-- is a plausible narrative of why and how the crime took place. The case against Ms. Knox and S. Sollecito was a bizarre fantasy, on the face of it. If the Italian authorities had had Occam's razor at hand, they would have held it to her throat, while inviting her to sign on the dotted line-- a la Don Corleone and Luca Brasi!

    Rudy Guede had a recent history of burglaries matching the crime scene that night. He was known to carry a large knife with him during such crimes, because he had been seen so armed, during one of his burglaries. He lied about not being there, and then, when confronted with the ready proof that he was lying, he made up an absurd story about going to the bathroom, in the middle of consensual sex with the decedent, and hearing a stranger enter the apartment, followed by a struggle and the death screams of the victim. He claimed to have then left the bathroom-- without flushing, as we all know-- in time to see the killer leave the apartment, warning poor Rudy to keep quiet. Rudy then takes a powder to Germany, when he learns that he might be a suspect, and is captured carrying some of the victim's personal belongings.

    [EXPLETIVE DELETED]!!! Does it really take Sherlock Holmes to figure this one out, Mr. Unz?!?

    ” and I suspect that I have a much higher IQ than Ms. Knox”

    Mr Unz has an IQ much higher than yours.

    Read More
    • Replies: @D. K.
    I doubt that his is much higher. At any rate, he is not trained in the law, nor, as far as I know, in any other relevant discipline; nor is he well acquainted with the case at hand.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  221. Much of the above commentary is good comedy “The media” was not trying to “downplay” or “hide” Guede’s involvement. Everybody who is even barely familiar with the case knows Guede is black. Who is trying to “downplay” that fact? And why is it so “horrible” that the NY Times mentions Guede later on down the page? What, another liberal “conspiracy”? Puhleeze… Knox always got more press for her looks and background. Of course she gets the bulk of the coverage. Duh..

    And contrary to the loony “black menace” mentality, most of the liberal white press actually gave Knox huge support, not to mention gushing over her looks- aka “Foxy Knoxy” and all the other fawning coverage. Some call it “lookism” rather than white privilege- whatever- if she didn’t look like she does, who would have given a damn to the same extent? If it were the mixed race looking Meredith Kirshner on trial, would any of the so-called noble poseurs talkin bout “defenders of white wimmenhood” care? Puhleeze.. A SMALL minority questioned this gushing support for Knox, and actually got little traction. They were dismissed and crucified for “beating up” on this saintly white gentile figure.

    Knox has always had large margins of support, unlike the idiot Guede. The notion of an “evil liberal press” beating up on white bread middle American girl is just a idiotic propaganda line by the usual suspects. The liberal press was always on Knox’s side. On top of that, Knox didn’t help her case by initially fingering the wrong black man, but to the loony gallery it hardly matters. The first guy would be “suspect” even if he were innocent.

    There were people who actually questioned the fingering of an innocent man- it had nothing to do with “white privilege.” Aside from her erratic behavior, she let an innocent man sit in jail for weeks deliberately, but notice how the noble defenders of womanhood have little to say about that. And the case speaks much more to the arcane workings of the Italian Justice system, as knowledgeable analysts have long pointed out, than any so called “complaints” of “white privilege.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  222. D. K. says:
    @Steve Sailer
    Yes, my old idea was that in Philip Marlowe novels, murder investigations tend to shine a spotlight on a lot of non-murderous suspects with something to hide.

    That happened to Rep. Gary Condit, for example, when his intern got murdered by some illegal alien rapist while jogging in the park. It soon came out that the dead girl had been having an affair with the Congressman. Then the whole world got very excited over the idea that Condit was the murderer, just look at him, you can tell by the expression on his face.

    Steve, there is not a shred of credible evidence that the illegal alien Ingmar Guandique, a native of El Salvador, ever laid eyes on Gary Condit’s mistress, alive or dead!

    A Jewess at “The Washington Post” talked her bosses into letting her and a couple of other reporters do a review of the unsolved case– presumed to be one of rape and murder, although the skeletal remains found in Rock Creek Park failed to definitively prove either– of Chandra Levy. (Levy was a former federal intern, but not a congressional intern. Gary Condit was actually her Congressman, and she was introduced to him as one of his constituents, I believe by one of his actual interns.)

    Their series appeared in the summer of 2008. The Jewess, Sari Horwitz, who later was suspended by the paper for plagiarizing news accounts from reporters from elsewhere in the country, explicitly stated, early on in the series, that she saw a younger version of herself in Chandra Levy. In other words, Horwitz was acting not as a journalist, seeking public knowledge, but as a Jewish avenger, seeking blood vengence against whatever goy was responsible.

    Since that was not possible, she satisfied herself with fingering an innocent young man whom the federal authorities had long had in custody, but whom they also had discounted, for virtually the same amount of time, of having any involvement in the Chandra Levy death.

    Ingmar Guandique first had been served up as a possible suspect while in the local lockup, a few months into the Levy-Condit scandal, in the summer of 2001. The fellow inmate who had attempted to serve him up knew that there were large rewards available in the Levy missing-person case (her remains were discovered just over a year after she disappeared), and so claimed that Guandique had confessed to him. Guandique passed an FBI polygraph, however, while his accuser did not.

    The star witness in the Horwitz vendetta was a retired U.S. Park Service Police detective, who, in 2008, was double-dipping, still working in Rock Creek Park, while collecting his pension from the federal government. He had interviewed Guandique, in the park, in the summer of 2001, when he was apprehended after the second of his failed muggings in the park. He had been present when Guandique was interviewed and polygraphed by the FBI, yet said nothing about Guandique’s alleged statement about seeing Chandra Levy in the park, in the spring. He waited until at least 2007, when Sari Horwitz came calling.

    Because of Horwitz’ crusade against Guandique, based largely on the retired detective’s wholly unsupported and greatly belated claim, the Levy case was reopened, and Guandique was indicted. There was zero forensic evidence tying him to the victim or the crime scene. The Feds used another stoolie to whom Guandique had supposedly confessed, even though their third cellmate took the stand and denied the claim. Two other stoolies were listed as witnesses, but neither was called to testify.

    Most tellingly, Sari Horwitz’ star witness, the double-dipping former detective, was never called to repeat under oath his incredible claim that Guandique had admitted to him, and two others (never named by Horwitz!), that he had seen Levy in the park, in the spring of 2001. What the Department of Justice thought of the detective’s veracity is there for all to see, in what the jurors could not!

    The case against Ingmar Guandique boiled down to a stoolie’s highly dubious– and flatly contradicted– claim of a jailhouse confession, and the recounting of his two muggings, later in 2001. In neither case did he physically harm, nor sexually assault his female victim. He failed, both times, in his goal of stealing their Walkmen-type devices or jewelry, and, both times, simply ran away, when resisted, despite his being armed with a knife.

    Read More
    • Replies: @David In TN
    Sara Horwitz was happy to see illegal alien Ingmar Guandique sent to prison on little or no evidence but would have fought with all her might to keep him from being deported.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  223. D. K. says:
    @Truth
    " and I suspect that I have a much higher IQ than Ms. Knox"

    Mr Unz has an IQ much higher than yours.

    I doubt that his is much higher. At any rate, he is not trained in the law, nor, as far as I know, in any other relevant discipline; nor is he well acquainted with the case at hand.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  224. Truth says:

    I don’t know, Deek, Unz claims a 215. Compared to him, you’re a Dinka Tribesman.* All he has to do is read a few law books, and his understanding is superior to your 4 years of school, just sayin’.

    * I was being charitable. Numerically more like a flying squirrel, n’est-ce pas?

    Read More
    • Replies: @D. K.
    If Mr. Unz can manage to pull a 215 on a professionally administered deviation-IQ exam, these days, I will eat my thirty-five-year-old copy of the DSM III (if I can lay my hands on it)!?!?! Any claimed score that high almost certainly came from a ratio-IQ test, taken as a child, and those are notoriously problematic out in the tails-- let alone that far out on the right tail!-- where the total number of extreme scorers greatly exceeds what the normal curve would predict.

    Marilyn Mach vos Savant's supposed "Guinness Book of World Records" childhood IQ of 228 is said to translate to about 188 on a deviation-IQ test-- and, even that is for an IQ test with a standard deviation of 16, rather than 15. She apparently scored a 186 on the Mega Test. (I have heard actor James Woods claim an IQ of 184; but, again, I suspect that that, even if true, was on a ratio-IQ test that he took as a precocious child, rather than on a deviation-IQ test that he has taken in adulthood!?!)

    I am content to be certifiably "smarter than the average bear," Zippy. Oh, and a lot smarter than you, of course!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  225. D. K. says:
    @Ron Unz

    Most of what people now think that they know about Amanda Knox and her then-boyfriend, and especially about the former’s supposedly suspicious behavior and incriminating statements, comes from the Italian police and prosecutors, as reported by the same press that you now claim to distrust about what it chooses to tell us and not tell us, and about how it chooses to tell us even that which it is willing to tell us. As a former attorney, and Italophile (I took two years of Italian, at Purdue, after my 1975 visit), I do not choose to believe their authorities.
     
    Well, as you say, I tend to be cautious in believing everything the MSM tells us. But I think massive disinformation is generally due to the unfortunate influence of various powerful individuals or groups. It's just not clear to me who would have a vested interest in railroading Ms. Knox and her Italian boyfriend.

    You might certainly be correct that the various statements and actions of Knox that seemed so suspicious to me (some of which I pointed to above) came from the Italian police, and were whole-cloth inventions intended to help convict her. Naturally, if they were all fictional, my suspicions were groundless. It's obviously very difficult for someone like me to decide without detailed investigation.

    However, I think your important question of motive also cuts the other way. I grant that Knox and her boyfriend had no apparent motive for brutalizing Kercher, which accidentally led to her murder. But I also can't think of any reason the Italian police would want to frame some American girl and her straight-arrow Italian boyfriend in a brutal sex-murder; offhand, they'd seem about the least likely suspects imaginable. Supposedly, the police claim that Knox falsely implicated some local black guy as the rapist, who was then thrown in jail, while the true rapist turned out to be a different local black guy, so there doesn't even seem to be any real racial angle.

    The newspapers seem to say that the overwhelming majority of Americans think Knox is innocent, while equally large majorities of Italians and British think she's guilty. I doubt that ordinary Italians have an overly inflated opinion of the perfect credibility of their own police or media, so I wonder why they'd be so sure that a "nice Italian boy" was somehow involved in the brutal killing.

    Some would call the differing national views a result of “the power of the press”– with the American press, in this case, being late to the game, compared to those in both Italy and Britain, and thus coming in at a different point in the unfolding of these events, with a markedly differing viewpoint, as a result.

    In psychology, we talk about the primacy effect. Which is a more powerful factor: primacy or recency? In a case like this one, I believe that primacy is far more powerful and more important, for a very understandable reason: once a person believes that a plausible case has been stated, he tends to decide what his personal belief about the case is; and, once he has decided, he is very reticent to change his original conclusion– if not downright impervious to change.

    Since the case was a cause celebre in Italy and Britain, from the get go, people there, including reporters, were impressed with the stunning arrests of the roommate and her boyfriend, which took place long before Rudy Guede was identified and apprehended. Already having concluded that Amanda Knox and her boyfriend were involved, it became a matter of integrating the three defendants into a common plan, not reevaluating if the original arrests were mistaken. In America, where the case was much later in becoming headline news, the facts on the ground had changed enough to allow for the alternate explanation: that Rudy Guede alone was the actual perpetrator, while Knox and her boyfriend had been arrested in error.

    Why would the local authorities pick on the implausible suspects of Knox and her boyfriend, and concoct such a bizarre theory of the crime? Because those authorities were in need of some quick arrests, to make Perugia look like a safe place to visit, both for its tourists and its many exchange students, and to make its local police look competent; under the exigencies of the circumstances, Knox and her boyfriend made themselves readily available to play the roles of uniquely perverted villains– before the mundane villain made his belated appearance!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  226. D. K. says:
    @Truth
    I don't know, Deek, Unz claims a 215. Compared to him, you're a Dinka Tribesman.* All he has to do is read a few law books, and his understanding is superior to your 4 years of school, just sayin'.

    * I was being charitable. Numerically more like a flying squirrel, n'est-ce pas?

    If Mr. Unz can manage to pull a 215 on a professionally administered deviation-IQ exam, these days, I will eat my thirty-five-year-old copy of the DSM III (if I can lay my hands on it)!?!?! Any claimed score that high almost certainly came from a ratio-IQ test, taken as a child, and those are notoriously problematic out in the tails– let alone that far out on the right tail!– where the total number of extreme scorers greatly exceeds what the normal curve would predict.

    Marilyn Mach vos Savant’s supposed “Guinness Book of World Records” childhood IQ of 228 is said to translate to about 188 on a deviation-IQ test– and, even that is for an IQ test with a standard deviation of 16, rather than 15. She apparently scored a 186 on the Mega Test. (I have heard actor James Woods claim an IQ of 184; but, again, I suspect that that, even if true, was on a ratio-IQ test that he took as a precocious child, rather than on a deviation-IQ test that he has taken in adulthood!?!)

    I am content to be certifiably “smarter than the average bear,” Zippy. Oh, and a lot smarter than you, of course!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ron Unz
    Well, without discussing my own IQ---whatever it might be---I think you might be mistaken regarding high-end scores.

    It's certainly true that childhood IQs aren't too reliable, especially those given to very young children, for obvious reasons. Also, lots of celebrities claim to have implausibly high IQs, but I suspect those are usually just fibs from their dishonest PR people, like so many other ridiculous claims they make. I suspect the same sort of nonsense more or less applies to that von Savant woman in Parade Magazine or that bar-bouncer fellow that people used to chatter about.

    But on the other side, there's no particular reason to believe that IQs actually follow a Gaussian distribution at the high end.

    I've never much investigated psychometric issues, but back a couple of years ago when I was doing my Meritocracy background research I discovered that one of the appendicies of a major academic book on college admissions issues excerpted portions of a study published by ETS psychometricians in the 1960s that estimated a relationship between IQ and pre-1995 SAT scores at the very high end. Back then, there was still a very strong IQ/SAT correlation, IQ research was less "incorrect," ETS was a leading employer of professional psychometricians, and the company presumably had total access to more high-end IQ-type scores than any other organization in the world. So while I can't vouch for the reliability of the ETS study, it wouldn't surprise me if it was one of the best (or rather, "least bad") ever produced.

    As I recall, the table indicated that in the late 1960s SAT=1600 roughly corresponded to IQ=200. Prior to 1995, I think the annual number of 1600s was typically in 5 to 15 range, which would place the number of IQ=200+ Americans as being at least a couple of hundred or more, which seems perfectly plausible to me.

    I reiterate that I'm no psychometrics expert and if anyone is interested in following up (which I never did), the book referencing the study was Prof. Robert Klitgaard's famous Choosing Elites.
    , @Truth
    From what I've read from you, Sport, I believe that you are, in fact, smarter than the average bear. Some of the more precocious Grizzlies, north of the border, and a few of the Arctic Polars, would probably navigate a maze a bit faster than you though.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  227. D. K. says:
    @Danindc
    great post and great thread by the way. Thanks to all parties - fascinating case esp when smart people disagree. This post sealed it for me though. Not guilty.

    Thanks for the compliment!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  228. Corvin says:

    Knox wasn’t responsible for Lumumba spending 15 days in jail. First, she took back her “confession” in less than two days after the interrogation but Lumumba wasn’t released until two weeks later. Second, the cops knew from early DNA tests that Lumumba was not the attacker who left his DNA in the victim’s vagina. Third, relying on the statements of someone who was interrogated without a lawyer and without an impartial translator is at best incompetent. Once again, I suggest reading this page and especially the texts of Knox’s so-called memoriali.

    I would also recommend Candace Dempsey’s Murder in Italy or Nina Burleigh’s The Fatal Gift of Beauty, or Knox’s own memoir, Waiting to be Heard. Knox was a bookish kid with a habit of expressing her negative emotions in writing, which went back to early childhood. He memoir is pretty good actually. It reads like a true story of growing up told by a young woman who has always taken herself seriously but was childishly ignorant – at the start of her sad journey – of the workings of the real world. Incidentally, Knox’s mother is half-German and I sensed that typically German mix of high-mindedness and cluelessness in the girl’s thinking: even sex was not random wantonness for her but a sort of philosophical adventure, in line with a certain strand in feminist thought. Oh, and that well-intentioned, liberal willingness to help, to be useful, to oblige… which all but ruined her.

    Let me put the interrogation into context now. Kercher was killed on the night of Nov. 1. Knox spent pretty much the whole of Nov. 2-4 with the investigators. By Nov. 5, she was totally exhausted and “freaking out,” in her own words. The cops knew that because they had been listening on her calls. At about 10 pm on the 5th, the cops called Sollecito to the precinct and Knox came along with him. By that time, Patrick Lumumba was already a suspect along with Knox and Sollecito.

    By all signs, the cops were planning a “decisive” questioning. A squad from Rome had arrived to help the local force to break the suspects. The supervising prosecutor (Mignini – read about his follies in The Monster of Florence by Preston and Spezi) was up all night waiting for his entry. Journalists had been tipped that something big was going to happen (see Burleigh’s book). Somehow that crucial interrogation went unrecorded. Given that the cops recorded all of Knox’s calls and took great care to transcribe and translate them, it’s a remarkable omission.

    Knox ended up signing two statements typed by the cops at 1:45 am and at 5:45 am on Nov. 6. But before she was taken to jail from the precinct, at 2-3 pm Nov. 6, she wrote and handed to the chief detective her “first memoriale.” It leaves no doubt about the cops’ tactic: they told Knox they had “hard evidence” that placed her at the crime scene and made her imagine being there and seeing Patrick. “Either help us or go to prison for 30 years because we have evidence you were there.” The 30 years is a telling detail because it’s the longest prison term in Italy (not counting life) and Knox couldn’t have made it up when she wrote that “memoriale” unless she had a copy of the Italian Criminal Code handy, which is rather improbable. 

    Knox sent another “memoriale” to the cops on Nov. 7, saying clearly she was not there and could not have seen Patrick. The cops simply ignored it.

    BTW the idea that the break-up was faked doesn’t stand up to scrutiny – the judges who acquitted Knox and Sollecito in 2011 scorned it. Rudy Guede was a burglar, as I’ve said. Breaking a window with a stone and entering with a knife was his mode of operation. You might want to look up the Italian documentary on the case where an English rock climber scales that wall in three easy movements. Guede wasn’t a rock climber but he was athletically gifted. In fact,  he played on the local basketball team and was informally adopted at 15 by the wealthy Perugian family that owned the club. They evicted him when he turned 18 because of his lying and general flakiness.

    The outer shutters were swollen and wouldn’t close, and the way shattered glass ended up was very much the same as in an experiment by a retired ballistics expert hired by the defense. Either Knox or Sollecito were Einsteins or the glass was broken from the outside. Read Ron Hendry on this. He’s a forensic engineer who did accident reconstructions from photographs for decades. He knows well which way glass falls when broken.

    Read More
    • Replies: @HA
    "Knox wasn’t responsible for Lumumba spending 15 days in jail. First, she took back her “confession” in less than two days after the interrogation but Lumumba wasn’t released until two weeks later."

    Let's assume that's right. If I confess to a crime, and then, after a few days in jail say "actually, I really don't like it in here; I'm changing my statement (again)", I'm not going to be surprised if the police put less weight on my retraction than they did to my initial confession. Again, I'm not saying she's guilty of the murder, I'm saying I understand why the police initially thought she might be connected. They were looking for a black guy early on, and it makes sense that they would want to nail down Lumumba's timeline for the night in question, and therefore, to Knox's communications with him and/or possible meeting, so one way or another, they had to get her to be exact about that. And then there's this, from my previous citation:


    Anna Donnino, an interpreter for the Perugia police, told the trial that Knox had an “emotional shock” on being shown her text to Lumumba, and said: “It’s him, he did it, I can feel it.”
     
    After that, given the previous shifting of alibis, the fits of crying and shaking, I don't find it ridiculous that the police would suspect that there was more to her involvement than what she was letting on and that they would tell her she needed to come clean or else she was going down for three decades herself. Even today, cops most everywhere tend to be stern once things get to that stage.

    Later on, the Italian justice system did indeed become farcical: they fried the hard drive which might have exonerated both Knox and Sollecito, and there was the prosecutor's weird sex-game scenario. (Sex game, you say? Really?) But early on, their actions seem more reasonable. (Recording everything is easier these days, and at the time, interviews of a more exploratory nature were allowed to go recorded. I suspect the Italians record a lot more interviews in these days of camera phones and GoPro).

    And as Ron Unz and others have noted, they already knew that a black guy of some sort was seen leaving the scene. Without putting a fine point on it, that already seems like something they would regard as being from the "usual suspects" central casting office and an indication of smooth sailing right down to the conviction. Why would they subsequently decide that a computer geek local boy and a fresh-faced barmaid exchange student were also involved -- not the most likely mix of criminals, I think you'll agree -- unless maybe it was the shifty actions of the latter two that had something to do with it?

    Were they guilty of murder? No, Knox and Sollecito were not -- 20/20 hindsight is a wonderful thing. But was this some banana-republic kangaroo court from the start? I'm not willing to go that far either.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  229. sabril says:
    @Art Deco
    My guess is that she and Sollecito set up Kercher to be raped by Guede and things went downhill from there.

    There is no indication at either she or Sollecito knew Rudy Guede. Sollecito hadn't met Knox until a few weeks earlier.

    “There is no indication at either she or Sollecito knew Rudy Guede. Sollecito hadn’t met Knox until a few weeks earlier.”

    Not sure what your point is here, it doesn’t change the fact that Knox’s story doesn’t add up AFAICT. I agree that there is not enough evidence to be confident of how exactly she was involved in the murder or what her motivations were.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art Deco
    Not sure what your point is here, it doesn’t change the fact that Knox’s story doesn’t add up AFAICT

    My point is that positing a collaborative project of this character between people who were completely unacquainted is a waste of your time and everyone else's. Sollecito did not know Guede, Knox knew Guede only as a face in the neighborhood, and Sollecito and Knox were new to each other. The idea that these three people co-operated in some bizarre sex game attempting to enlist a 4th person (and killing her) or that Knox and Sollecito made themselves accomplices after the fact to Guede's crimes cannot be taken seriously absent eyewitness testimony, forensic evidence, or documentation which indicates that they were acquainted with each other or left a trail which indicated they did collaborate. The authorities in Italy were relying on the most dubious and discreditable forensic evidence because that's all they had.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  230. DavidB says:
    @SPMoore8
    My own take came very late, since I never paid any attention to the case in 2007 or 2008. I had a co-worker who was virulently in Amanda's favor (since deceased) and I remember that advocacy struck me. I didn't learn anything about the case until a year ago January when the Italian court reinstated the convictions. By then, Amanda had already been in the states for 3 years.

    The bullet points that on the surface seem persuasive of "something" are actually inferences, in most cases they are not "facts".

    The points that lead me to think that Amanda and Raffaele (AK and RS) are probably innocent could be summarized this way:

    1. The timeline. AK and RS were both arrested for the murder within a few days. On the other hand, we now know that Rudy Guede (RG) raped and murdered the victim, however, he wasn't arrested until a month later, after fleeing to Germany. So this looks right away like a "facts fitting theory" scenario.

    2. RG's guilt is conclusive, based on the forensic evidence (blood, fingerprints, DNA) especially in the room where the Meredith Kercher (MK) was killed. By contrast, there is no DNA evidence of AK in the room, and only one (questionable) trace of RS DNA on a bra clasp that was found on the floor and was processed some time after the killing. Based on the way trace evidence and DNA evidence is supposed to work, I think it is very unlikely that AK or RS were in the murder room, which means, at best, that they were somehow accomplices in the murder (including accessories before or after the fact.)

    3. Occam's Razor. I know this is invoked frequently, but in this case it does seem appropriate. We have a murder scene, we have a dead body, we have plenty of forensic evidence at the murder scene, and it all points to RG. So, query, why are we even talking about AK and RS? Because they were arrested almost immediately and the prosecution was convinced that they were somehow involved. That is the ultimate source for all the inferences cited up top.

    Put another way, the simplest explanation is that RG broke in, raped Meredith, murdered her, stole her money, and then skipped town. Except for the first point, there's no question that the rest is what happened. The only question left is the extent to which AK or RS were involved in some satanic "Halloween" or Samhain ritual (don't blame me, that was the prosecutor's idea.)

    I don't want to absolve AK or RS from acting strangely, and I have no desire to devote that much energy to the case, but (a) I am convinced that the evidence never rose above a "reasonable doubt" threshold, and (b) I don't think you can convict someone of murder and sentence them to what is in practical terms three times longer than the actual killer and expect to be taken seriously.

    I've never heard a coherent counter-explanation for why AK or RS were, at best, accomplices to the murder of MK. I'd be willing to give it a listen.

    Nobody disputes that Guede was the primary killer: the issue is whether Knox and/or Sollecito were also involved. There is strong evidence that Guede had an accomplice(s). The Italian Supreme Court final decision is reported to still accept this (we shall have to see their full report for confirmation). There are strong circumstantial grounds for suspicion that Knox and/or Sollecito were the accomplice(s), and no credible evidence to implicate anyone else. In the American legal system many people have been tried, convicted, and executed on less evidence than this. Personally, I think the lack of direct forensic evidence against K/S raises sufficient reasonable doubt for an acquittal, but the Scottish verdict of ‘not proven’ would be better than ‘not guilty’. Knox is certainly guilty of making false accusations against Lumumba, and probably against the police.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sean
    Nope, the courts ruled Guede had accomplices said he was a relatively minor player, and Knox had attacked and killed Kercher . Moreover the courts that found Knox and Solicetto guilty specifically said that that Guede didn't have a knife. Solecitto had a jacknife (a bit like the one Guede brandished at a man during a burglary a few weeks before) and Knox had a large kitchen knife that she was carrying about in her handbag, but Guede didn't have a knife. Guede was supposedly the only one who didn't have a knife.

    Yes, Guede must have had accomplices because a lone petite girl could not be overpowered and terrorised into submission by an athletically built young man armed with a knife.

    , @Art Deco
    There is strong evidence that Guede had an accomplice(s).

    ==

    There isn't. Even were there, you'd take an interest in people who were known to associate with Guede, which would not include either Knox or Sollecito.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  231. Sean says:
    @Ron Unz

    Most of what people now think that they know about Amanda Knox and her then-boyfriend, and especially about the former’s supposedly suspicious behavior and incriminating statements, comes from the Italian police and prosecutors, as reported by the same press that you now claim to distrust about what it chooses to tell us and not tell us, and about how it chooses to tell us even that which it is willing to tell us. As a former attorney, and Italophile (I took two years of Italian, at Purdue, after my 1975 visit), I do not choose to believe their authorities.
     
    Well, as you say, I tend to be cautious in believing everything the MSM tells us. But I think massive disinformation is generally due to the unfortunate influence of various powerful individuals or groups. It's just not clear to me who would have a vested interest in railroading Ms. Knox and her Italian boyfriend.

    You might certainly be correct that the various statements and actions of Knox that seemed so suspicious to me (some of which I pointed to above) came from the Italian police, and were whole-cloth inventions intended to help convict her. Naturally, if they were all fictional, my suspicions were groundless. It's obviously very difficult for someone like me to decide without detailed investigation.

    However, I think your important question of motive also cuts the other way. I grant that Knox and her boyfriend had no apparent motive for brutalizing Kercher, which accidentally led to her murder. But I also can't think of any reason the Italian police would want to frame some American girl and her straight-arrow Italian boyfriend in a brutal sex-murder; offhand, they'd seem about the least likely suspects imaginable. Supposedly, the police claim that Knox falsely implicated some local black guy as the rapist, who was then thrown in jail, while the true rapist turned out to be a different local black guy, so there doesn't even seem to be any real racial angle.

    The newspapers seem to say that the overwhelming majority of Americans think Knox is innocent, while equally large majorities of Italians and British think she's guilty. I doubt that ordinary Italians have an overly inflated opinion of the perfect credibility of their own police or media, so I wonder why they'd be so sure that a "nice Italian boy" was somehow involved in the brutal killing.

    IT would be grossly unfair to suggest all Italians supported this modern-day burning of the American witch, but observers who had a sense that an injustice was being done could do little, and few dared speak out. One reason is that in Italy, it is a crime to “insult” public officials or damage the reputation of a magistrate. In the Knox case, the police and prosecution filed numerous slander suits against groups and individuals, including journalists and the Knox and Sollecito families.

    The police also arrested local blogger and journalist Frank Sfarzo, who said they roughed him up. Under the honor and slander laws, the prosecutor charged Sfarzo and at least three publications or journalists who have challenged the law enforcement version of the story. Prosecutor Mignini had an Italian journalist thrown in jail for investigating his conclusions in another case—leading an American writer covering that story to flee Italy for fear he’d be arrested.

    Italian journalists and foreign reporters working in Italy heed these laws, which is why an annual ranking of press freedom by nation puts Italy in the “partly free” category (along with Mali and Algeria)—the only Western European country to fall into that category.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  232. Sean says:
    @DavidB
    Nobody disputes that Guede was the primary killer: the issue is whether Knox and/or Sollecito were also involved. There is strong evidence that Guede had an accomplice(s). The Italian Supreme Court final decision is reported to still accept this (we shall have to see their full report for confirmation). There are strong circumstantial grounds for suspicion that Knox and/or Sollecito were the accomplice(s), and no credible evidence to implicate anyone else. In the American legal system many people have been tried, convicted, and executed on less evidence than this. Personally, I think the lack of direct forensic evidence against K/S raises sufficient reasonable doubt for an acquittal, but the Scottish verdict of 'not proven' would be better than 'not guilty'. Knox is certainly guilty of making false accusations against Lumumba, and probably against the police.

    Nope, the courts ruled Guede had accomplices said he was a relatively minor player, and Knox had attacked and killed Kercher . Moreover the courts that found Knox and Solicetto guilty specifically said that that Guede didn’t have a knife. Solecitto had a jacknife (a bit like the one Guede brandished at a man during a burglary a few weeks before) and Knox had a large kitchen knife that she was carrying about in her handbag, but Guede didn’t have a knife. Guede was supposedly the only one who didn’t have a knife.

    Yes, Guede must have had accomplices because a lone petite girl could not be overpowered and terrorised into submission by an athletically built young man armed with a knife.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  233. WhatEvvs [AKA "Bemused"] says:
    @TheJester
    That an Italian court found Amanda Cox innocent means nothing. In the Italian justice system, the courts act and then the thing goes into an endless appeals process. It goes back and forth until, at the end of the day, a person is found guilty or innocent based on their political power, their wealth, or their social notoriety. It is as if bouncing around the Italian (mis)justice system is considered punishment enough for the politically well connected, wealthy, or racially privileged. Amanda Cox was a drug promiscuous drug addicted during her "student" adventure in Italy. I've kept track of the case over the years and, yes, I believe she participated in the crime. Her well heeled parents put too much "heat" on the Italian politicos for a guilty verdict. And, yes, the crime will follow her the rest of her life since a not guilty verdict by an Italian court is without substance or meaning.

    Amanda Cox was a drug promiscuous drug addicted during her “student” adventure in Italy

    .
    OK. But Amanda Knox was an average kid who got swept up in something she couldn’t possibly have understood. Ditto for Raffaele.

    Foxy Coxy?

    I’ve kept track of the case over the years a

    I’ll bet, you seem the type. This case is a textbook example of internet loonies fastening on a victim who can’t fight back.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  234. LondonBob says:
    @Art Deco
    Louise Woodward’s looked rather unhappy at the not guilty,
    --
    She was found guilty. The judge reduced the charges at a subsequent hearing and reduced her sentence to time served.

    Yes that’s it, he looked very non plussed on losing and did not console her.

    Seem to remember the Italian prosecutor had form with bizarre satanic sex orgy allegations. Knox was just his latest effort.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art Deco
    Yes that’s it, he looked very non plussed on losing and did not console her.

    You have an issue with undemonstrative people? What's your argument? That his demeanor indicates she's guilty because he should look like he expected to lose or that his demeanor indicates she's guilty because he should behave like her mother and not like a legal professional in court?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  235. Wilkey says:

    I don’t know what the standards of Italian justice are, but in the American justice system, as in any rational, fair system of justice, Amanda Knox does not have to prove her innocence – the prosecutors have to prove her guilt. I have never seen any plausible explanation for why Knox and her ex-bf were guilty. There’s not a single one that isn’t riddled with holes. Knox’s own story has fewer holes in it than the ones explaining why she is supposedly guilty.

    When you combine that with the straightforward observation that a murder does not not fit Knox’s character, and that 22-year-old white, female college grads don’t tend to commit a whole lot of crimes, let alone murders – as well as the fact that Rudy Guede had every reason to implicate her in order to reduce his sentence – there is no serious reason to believe that Knox is guilty.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  236. WhatEvvs [AKA "Bemused"] says:

    On the prosecutor:

    http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/Mignini.html

    There is a class aspect to this as well. Peter Popham of the nice people’s Independent has known all along that the case was shit:

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/amanda-knox-acquitted-finally-they-are-free-this-was-an-outrageous-miscarriage-of-justice-10140573.html

    It’s was the stupid people’s paper that pushed the Foxy Knoxy meme.

    Finally, the Kerchers, especially John, have vociferously advocated the 3 assailant theory because their 5’1″ daughter had taken a year of karate, and could “easily” have fought off an athletic man a foot taller than she. (Google it.) I mean, a year of karate. Meredith was a butt-kicking babe! A 5’1″ female can EASILY fight off a 6’1″ man at the height of his athletic power! Pow! Splat! Bam! Comics and movies say so, so it must be true!

    For the anti-Knox loonies here (why are none of you anti-Sollecito? and why do you all misspell the names of the key actors?), that’s meant to be sarcasm. This was a sadly typical rape-murder, committed by one man, who had a history of this sort of behavior. Nothing much to see beyond that.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  237. Ron Unz says:
    @D. K.
    If Mr. Unz can manage to pull a 215 on a professionally administered deviation-IQ exam, these days, I will eat my thirty-five-year-old copy of the DSM III (if I can lay my hands on it)!?!?! Any claimed score that high almost certainly came from a ratio-IQ test, taken as a child, and those are notoriously problematic out in the tails-- let alone that far out on the right tail!-- where the total number of extreme scorers greatly exceeds what the normal curve would predict.

    Marilyn Mach vos Savant's supposed "Guinness Book of World Records" childhood IQ of 228 is said to translate to about 188 on a deviation-IQ test-- and, even that is for an IQ test with a standard deviation of 16, rather than 15. She apparently scored a 186 on the Mega Test. (I have heard actor James Woods claim an IQ of 184; but, again, I suspect that that, even if true, was on a ratio-IQ test that he took as a precocious child, rather than on a deviation-IQ test that he has taken in adulthood!?!)

    I am content to be certifiably "smarter than the average bear," Zippy. Oh, and a lot smarter than you, of course!

    Well, without discussing my own IQ—whatever it might be—I think you might be mistaken regarding high-end scores.

    It’s certainly true that childhood IQs aren’t too reliable, especially those given to very young children, for obvious reasons. Also, lots of celebrities claim to have implausibly high IQs, but I suspect those are usually just fibs from their dishonest PR people, like so many other ridiculous claims they make. I suspect the same sort of nonsense more or less applies to that von Savant woman in Parade Magazine or that bar-bouncer fellow that people used to chatter about.

    But on the other side, there’s no particular reason to believe that IQs actually follow a Gaussian distribution at the high end.

    I’ve never much investigated psychometric issues, but back a couple of years ago when I was doing my Meritocracy background research I discovered that one of the appendicies of a major academic book on college admissions issues excerpted portions of a study published by ETS psychometricians in the 1960s that estimated a relationship between IQ and pre-1995 SAT scores at the very high end. Back then, there was still a very strong IQ/SAT correlation, IQ research was less “incorrect,” ETS was a leading employer of professional psychometricians, and the company presumably had total access to more high-end IQ-type scores than any other organization in the world. So while I can’t vouch for the reliability of the ETS study, it wouldn’t surprise me if it was one of the best (or rather, “least bad”) ever produced.

    As I recall, the table indicated that in the late 1960s SAT=1600 roughly corresponded to IQ=200. Prior to 1995, I think the annual number of 1600s was typically in 5 to 15 range, which would place the number of IQ=200+ Americans as being at least a couple of hundred or more, which seems perfectly plausible to me.

    I reiterate that I’m no psychometrics expert and if anyone is interested in following up (which I never did), the book referencing the study was Prof. Robert Klitgaard’s famous Choosing Elites.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SPMoore8
    I'm one of those people who was tested for IQ in a couple of tests in the early '60's. I had no idea what was going on, really. I'm also one of those people who was never told their scores; although I know it was very high. My son was tested 20 years ago and was in the 160's, I still don't understand how or why he was told his score. The IQs in general 1% terms (for both of us) have been validated by other tests, academic results, and so on.

    But I have to reiterate my original point about the general meaninglessness of IQ's above a certain threshold, at least as a predictive or determinative model. For example, I know in what my intelligence consisted: I started reading early and was way ahead of my peers. In addition, I made sure that if I heard or saw something I didn't understand I would find out about it. The mechanical kinds of tests -- how many things can you think of at the same time, how many words can you memorize at first glance -- I'd say my skills in that area are perhaps above average but, when I read about chess players like Harry Nelson Pillsbury who could memorize a list of 24 words (mostly polysyllabic and arcane) with one perusal, and then give them back to you in order or in reverse a half hour later, I can't do that. And it doesn't make me feel bad that I can't do that. But his "IQ" must have been way up there.

    Marilyn vos Savant or someone else may have an IQ above 200, and they may be able to do the kinds of things Pillsbury could pull off, but is it really important? I don't think so. I mean there's only so many ways of reading a book, or opining on a court case. The bigger problem I think is when people tend to think that having an IQ off the charts confers some kind of authority. It shouldn't. The only that matters is what you are doing, and what you have done, and as has been shown repeatedly the habit of thinking is more important than the gift of IQ.
    , @Jack D
    According to these tables:

    http://iqcomparisonsite.com/oldSATIQ.aspx

    http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/iqtable.aspx

    a pre-recentering 1600 corresponds to an IQ of around 164+ on a 1 SD=15pts scale (e.g. the Wechsler scale) which corresponds to a rarity of around 1 person in 100,000. Note that because of ceiling effects, it really means that your IQ is 164 OR above - 170s, 180s, 200s - they will all get 1600 SATs and you can't tell them apart using the SAT.

    Regarding childhood (or at least pre-teen) IQ, according the Hopkins Study of Exceptional Talent (SET), a modern SAT score of 700+ on either verbal or math, received before age 13, is achievable by about 1 child in 10,000, which corresponds to an IQ of around 156+. By the time you are 12 your intelligence is fairly crystallized and is not going to vary much later. Virtually all of the SET kids go on to graduate level education.

    It's hard to find really reliable data about very high IQ scores (say over 165) because there are so few people in that category to norm against and most tests ceiling out somewhere around there. The fact that it is not politically fashionable to concentrate on this area (in which virtually no NAMs are present) has not helped. I think SET itself has only survived because it is now abundant with Asians. If it was still a predominantly white male group they would have shut it down by now.
    , @candid_observer
    What does it even mean to say that at the upper end IQ doesn't follow a Gaussian distribution?

    These days, IQ is basically standardized by forcing the numbers to fit the normal curve; that is, the raw scores are essentially mapped onto the normal curve via percentiles, and then the resultant SD scores translated into IQ points with either 15 or 16 as the standard deviation.

    Now there may be a real question as to whether something the IQ imperfectly measures, such as g, actually conforms to a normal curve, but there are far too few real measures of g independent of IQ tests to get any legitimate sense of this.

    I think the most sensible reason to think that g follows a normal curve is to consider its genetic base, which seems to be heavily additive, and which seems to show no set of genes of anything other than very small effect. If there were a gene that might induce extremely high g, and thereby inflate the number of people with very high g, it certainly seems we ought to know about it already, and we don't. It might also be true, I suppose, that the actual mechanism that lies behind g might have a threshold effect at the upper range, so that relatively small changes in the additive genes might induce a large effect in the mechanism, but I see no reason to believe this.

    By far the most sensible thing to believe by default is that g follows a normal curve.

    , @D. K.
    An IQ score of 200 is 6.25 standard deviations above the mean on a Stanford-Binet IQ test (SD = 16), and 6.67 standard deviations above the mean on a Wechsler IQ test (SD = 15).

    The SAT was designed with a total spread of only six standard deviations, with an expected median score of 500, and an expected standard deviation of 100, on any of its component parts. The SAT scores range from 200 (-3SD) to 800 (+3SD), on any one portion.

    The notion that such a test-- even though designed for those at least contemplating going on to college-- could require an IQ of well over six standard deviations above the IQ mean in order to score a mere three standard deviations above the mean on the SAT itself is, shall we say, highly implausible.

    , @D. K.
    Where is the loquacious Carl Sagan when we need him?

    http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/IQtable.aspx
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  238. WhatEvvs [AKA "Bemused"] says:

    I had never heard of Knox before I read this. It’s pretty good:

    http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/10/an-innocent-abroad/

    Americans ought to understand that they don’t come off very well as foreigners. She was a stupid kid who behaved in a way almost calculated to offend Italians. Further, American women (and maybe this is something Mr. Sailer might want to write about) don’t understand that when they leave the protection of their WEIRD cocoons, they are naked to the predatory instincts of the human tribe. Half of that tribe will be the women of the country they are trespassing in, who will hate their guts.

    No, she shouldn’t have sung an aria, she should have behaved demurely and worn a little makeup. And skirts. She had to be persuaded to dress in skirts, insisting on coming to a court, which Italians take as seriously as going to the theatre, in her ugly Seattle grunge clothes. The times she came in a skirt she made a better impression. This matters. At one point one of her sisters came to court in shorts!

    It’s something like white privilege, when you think of it. You don’t know you’ve got it until it’s gone.

    PS – Sollecito’s lawyer was a woman, a real wolverine.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    When in Rome, do as the Romans do: e.g., wear classy shoes.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  239. Sean says:
    @Ron Unz


    Amanda Knox Acquitted of 2007 Murder by Italy’s Highest Court.
     
    It turns out that the real killer was … the black street criminal.
     
    Well, if legal verdicts are so conclusive, should OJ get his good name back?

    Glancing over the thread, I'd guess I've followed this case about 95% less than most of the conflicting commenters, but I do recall that Knox's behavior and statements during the investigation struck me as very odd, sufficiently odd that I thought there was at least a 50-50 chance she was involved in the murder. Since the Italian courts have now both convicted and acquitted her several separate times, I can't see how more more acquittal makes much of a difference.

    Another factor was that if this court had ruled against her, wouldn't Italy have had to try to get her extradicted back? And since America wouldn't have complied, the Italian government would have looked ridiculous, an embarrassment that the ruling averted.

    To my eye, it looks like the partisans in this thread are lining up about 3-to-1 in Knox's favor. Since they know the details in-and-out while I don't, I'm curious how they despond to the reasonable points made by "Bill B" above, some of which I think I'd also read elsewhere in the past.

    “Well, if legal verdicts are so conclusive, should OJ get his good name back?”

    OJ was found not guilty in a far weaker sense (the corollary of guilty verdicts in the US having to meet a far higher standard of proof than in Italy), and he went on to lose a civil case. The Italian Supreme Court could have sent Knox back for a retrial if there was any lingering suspicion, but it gave a judgement that is a complete exoneration. It is the final verdict in the case for the entire legal system, including civil courts.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  240. Sean says:

    Joseph Mach (descendant of superbrain Ernst Mach) and Marina vos Savant’s daughter is a good bet for top female IQ . She made a few mistakes in abstruse mathematical reasoning, but she showed astounding practical intelligence in the Monty Hall problem that confused experts in statistics.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.