Amanda Knox Facing Slander Charges for Claiming Perugia Police Intimidated and Abused Her

Thank you for the great article, Brenda. I have no doubt that Amanda Knox' was completely uninvolved in the death of her friend and housemate. The persecution of this young American is unlike any other crime committed by a foreign power I've ever heard of. She has been essentially kidnapped and is being held as some sort of trophy. The evidence against her was manufactured. Every time part of it unravels, they invent something new. I also have no doubt that her interrogation WAS recorded and that recording will emerge as Italian officials become increasingly disgusted with the methods of this prosecution. Current events in Italy regarding this case show this is already happening.

It's looking more like she's innocent from here, too. It's so bizarre that they're pushing for slander charges. I mean, really, are they police or not? So unprofessional.

Brenda, I think it's worse than 'unprofessional,' it's overkill. This slander trial may be the turning point for Amanda Knox. People who were shilly-shallying, did she or didn't she? are seeing that there's something that's not kosher about this entire prosecution. Sue her for slander AFTER convicting her of murder on highly contended evidence? To paraphrase Sonny Corleone, This isn't business, it's personal!

Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito gave completely different accounts of where they were, who they were with and what they were doing on the night of the murder. Neither Knox nor Sollecito have credible alibis despite three attempts each. All the other people who were questioned had one credible alibi that could be verified. Innocent people don't give multiple conflicting alibis and lie repeatedly to the police.

The DNA didn't miraculously deposit itself in the most incriminating of places.

An abundant amount of Raffaele Sollecito's DNA was found on Meredith's bra clasp. Judge Massei pointed to the extremely clear RFU peaks associated with the DNA test, the lowest of which was 30% higher than the RFU test widely used for minimum reliability and the highest of which was more than 200% higher. Of the 17 loci tested in the sample, Sollecito's profile matched 17 out of 17. Dr. Torricelli for the Kerchers affirmed that the alleles (peaks) in the sample constituted the biological profile of Raffaele Sollecito.

According to Sollecito's forensic expert, Professor Vinci, Knox's DNA was on Meredith's bra.

Amanda Knox's DNA was found on the handle of the double DNA knife and a number of independent forensic experts - Dr. Patrizia Stefanoni, Dr. Renato Biondo and Professor Francesca Torricelli - categorically stated that Meredith’s DNA was on the blade.

There were five instances of Knox's DNA mixed with Meredith's blood in three different locations in the cottage.

Knox tracked Meredith's blood into the bathroom, the hallway, her room and Filomena's room, where the break-in was staged. Knox's DNA and Meredith's blood was found mixed together in Filomena's room, in a bare bloody footprint in the hallway and in three places in the bathroom.

Rudy Guede's bloody footprints led straight out of Meredith's room and out of the house. This means that he didn't stage the break-in in Filomena's room or go into the blood-spattered bathroom after Meredith had been stabbed.

Sollecito left a visible bloody footprint on the blue bathmat in the bathroom. Knox's and Sollecito's bare bloody footprints were revealed by luminol in the hallway.

It's not a coincidence that the three people - Knox, Sollecito and Guede - who kept telling the police a pack of lies are all implicated by the DNA and forensic evidence.

Amanda Knox voluntarily admitted that she was involved in Meredith's murder in her handwritten note to the police on 6 November 2007.

HarryRag: wow, from 3 completely different alibis and credible people don't give conflicting alibis, to Amanda Knox voluntarily "admitted" she was involved with Meredith's murder. Sounds so "case closed". I just wish that you would finish your sentences, eg, "she voluntarily admitted = she wrote that she was confused and after hours and in fact days of interrogation, when pressed because of a text message to Patrick saying "see you later" that she could "imagine" being in the other room with her hand over her ears, but that she didn't believe any of this was real. And so on and so forth, with all of your assertions of "evidence". Independent forensic experts? Please, please, I swear to you that I want to understand the evidence that supports guilt, but you are driving us away from that conclusion by your obvious mis-characterizations of the "evidence".

If you would at least complete your thoughts that would help those of us to see evidence that she did it, so that we can accept this judgment, as opposed to the shallow "evidence" that you always quote. From what you continually present, it can't help but make us searchers reject your belief of guilt.

You really are doing more harm than good, if your goal is to convince people of her guilt.

Amanda Knox admitted that she was at the cottage when Meredith was killed after less than three hours of questioning.

According to one of the witnesses, Rita Ficarra, who was present when Knox was questioned, Knox categorically stated that Diya Lumumba killed Meredith:

“She started crying and wrapping her hands around her head, she started shaking it, and then she said: it was him…Patrick killed her”.

How would you account for the visible bloody footprint on the blue bathmat which matched the precise characteristics of Sollecito's foot, but couldn't possibly belong to Rudy Guede?

How would you account for the abundant amount of Sollecito's DNA on a small piece of Meredith's underwear?

Why do you think Knox and Sollecito lied repeatedly to the police and gave multiple conflicting alibis?

Thanks in advance.

Gee willikers Mr Rag, you are doing the same thing.... "after three hours of questioning"? Really? When everyone in the world knows that she was questioned many many hours over something like 5 days, and this last "admission" was at something like 4 in the morning without food.

I know you know a lot about this case, because you are everywhere on this subject, but a light reader like myself gets turned the other way, toward innocence, by reading such incomplete slanted versions. There must be better reasons for the guilty verdict, and I am surprised you don't present your side better. You obviously have a big investment in this.

Again, you are doing a disservice to "your side".... Abundant DNA of Sollecito? There was abundant DNA of Meredith, and there existed DNA of other unknown people, and the DNA of Sollecito was very small. Foot prints... Why do you spend so much time making these statements? Who are you trying to convince? And if you do convince someone reading a blog, what difference does it make? Do you think the Italian authorities care? "Repeated lies?" About what?

GEE WILLIKERS!

Amanda Knox had been questioned for less than three hours on 5 November 2007 when she made her false and malicious accusation against Diya Lumumba. An allegation she didn't retract the whole time he was in prison despite the fact that she knew that he was completely innocent.

Knox voluntarily admitted that she was involved on 6 November 2007. She even asked for a pen and paper to write this confession. No-one forced her to admit that she was involved in Meredith's murder or told her what to write.

By claiming that Knox was given no food, you're merely regurgitating a FOA myth that has been completely debunked. Even Knox admitted that she was given food when she testified at the trial.

You need to get your facts straight. Sollecito's DNA on Meredith's bra clasp was revealed by two separate DNA tests and the amount of his DNA was defined as "abundant' by Dr. Stefanoni. According to Sollecito's forensic expert, Professor Vinci, Knox's DNA was also on Meredith's bra.

The computer and mobile phone records provide irrefutable proof that Knox and Sollecito lied to the police about what they did on 1 and 2 November 2007. These lies are covered in detail in the Massei report. Sollecito admitted that he had lied to the police in his witness statement:

“In my former statement I told you a load of rubbish because I believed Amanda’s version of what happened and did not think about the inconsistencies.”

You didn't actually answer any of my questions.

Why do you think Knox and Sollecito lied to the police and gave multiple conflicting alibis?

How would you account for the visible bloody footprint on the blue bathmat which matched the precise characteristics of Sollecito's foot, but couldn't possibly belong to Rudy Guede?

How would you account for the abundant amount of Sollecito's DNA on a small piece of Meredith's underwear?

Thanks in advance.

If you have problems answering the questions, I suggest reading the following sentence from Amanda Knox's handwritten note to the police:

"Everything I have said in regards to my involvement in Meredith’s death, even though it is contrasting, are the best truth that I have been able to think." (Amanda Knox, 6 November 2007).

Harry, you are very much missing the point. You are a professional. I am an amateur at this. Your comments are turning me away from a decision on my part to believe that she is guilty. You already believe that. I am inclined to believe innocent until I am shown otherwise. Isn't that what one is supposed to do? and please spare me the convicted by a court and 16 judges or whatever. They may be right, but then again they can be wrong. After all, the whole "repeatedly lied" comment can be applied to them as well, so why should anyone believe them over the defendants. But back to my point, it is not me that should be answering questions. I don't run a campaign on one side or the other. You, I would humbly suggest, need to do a better job of selling your version of the facts, if you want to swing me or anyone else over from the innocent to the guilty club. Let's start with your very first line: "false and malicious" accusation. That is loaded with your assumption that her confused and disbelief over her own memory, as clearly stated in her statement which you call a "confession", is filled with intent to frame or accuse Patrick. You have a habit of clipping out the parts that serve your belief and conviction of guilt, but not quoting anything that creates ambiguity. And for searchers like me, your lack of inclusion of relevant facts makes your arguments suspect. When you could be right. But everyone of your statements of "facts" is so either loaded or slanted, that it makes it difficult to see any element of truth that you do want to put forth. I think that this is the essential problem with the guilt crowd - they are so convinced of their conclusion, that they don't know how to communicate their side effectively. E.g., you state Knox testified that she was given food when questioned. Isn't it true that she testified that she testified that she was only given food she gave the statement that she thought the police were looking for? That is an enormous omission on your part. If I am incorrect, please direct me to the hard citation on that. That this "myth" perpetuated by the FOA has been thoroughly debunked, is highly suspect in my mind. And unfortunately, your comments have been so filled with incomplete truths that I have a high degree of suspicion with regard to your claims. Again, you are the professional in this, or else you are independently wealthy and can spend countless hours and days at this. Myself, I get about maybe 20 minutes before bed looking over the various blogs. So don't ask me the questions, instead, please justify your positions with complete answers and statements so that I am not driven away from any real truth you have to offer.

Your refusal to answer my questions is cowardly and indicates you have no intention of finding out the truth.

By making the unsubstantiated claim that that the judges repeatedly lied, you're revealing yourself to be an ignorant conspiracy nut. You haven't provided one example of one of the judges' lies because there isn't one.

It seems you're just another obsessive middled-aged white knight who slobbers over Amanda Knox and dreams about rescuing her from the dastardly Italians. This explains why you are so desperate to brush inconvenient facts like the double DNA knife, Sollecito's DNA on a small piece of Meredith's underwear, Sollecito's bloody footprint on the blue bathmat, the five instances of Knox's DNA mixed with Meredith''s blood in three different locations in the cottage, the luminol footprints and the pack of lies Knox and Sollecito told the police under the carpet.

error: I have do have a problem with the double DNA knife. You are reactionary, and your extreme comments don't do you justice. Nice talking with you. I will let you slobber on your own time.