You know, anonymous commenters turn into apparent scholars of the day so easily. I'm curious what this little kid's thesis actually is if he's actually writing a law review article on ethics. Or at least tell us the title so we can read it when it's "published".

It would be great to see a paragraph from the paper being that at least a draft is done being that his/her professor has seen it. A simple copy and paste would be great.

the Knox family formed a dedicated media machine that created a core of supporters who “were simply choosing to ignore the facts that were coming to light in Italy.”

Media access depended on a journalist’s sympathies—the family would cooperate only with the “innocentisti.”

Networks paid for the Knoxes’ travel in exchange for exclusives, and media personalities openly worked for them.

... the family kept an iron grip on its message—the only message America heard.

"Yummi, you want it? You got it! Look here:
http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/footprints-01.html
"

All those measurements are found in the judges report. But Rinaldi's and the Court's report give more numbers than that. They focus on the plantar arch left and right, the toe, the second toe and the measurements of a series of points on a grid.
The accusation thesis with its gounds is missing.

It is very indicative of the declining professionalism of American journalism that facts can be simply ignored because of bias. The Knox publicity machine has engineered a false viewpoint and the American media has largely acted as though they are incapable of independent thought.

Thankfully, this is unimportant on the world stage - the US has no influence over Italy and their decision to rightly imprison Knox will remain. Indeed, there is no-one of any political importance in the US doing anything on Knox's behalf - presumably because they have no qualms about her guilt and the validity of her very fair trial.

Strike 1: I'm not "Somealibi" (that's a new one BTW - in the past you and your pals have called me "Michael", "Peg", "Kermit" & "Harry" - but I'm not one of those PMF Stars - I don't post there, I read it though)

Strike 2: I was making a simple declarative statement of my opinion of you - I was not advancing an argument (ad hominem or otherwise)

So, tell me, are you the one that's jealous of M.G.?

Mary, I caught you again spinning around.
It's not much about the credential of the people that run FOA websites, but it's the second paragraph of a previous post that was extremely interesting. Here it is again:

[FOA websites] "look, feel and 'read' just like the sites run by '9/11 truthers", people that deny the moon landings, UFO freaks, JFK nuts & Sarah Palin supporters"

You know what? You all come across like a bunch of obsessed fools playing some bizarre internet game all over the web.

I understand you cherry-picking from the ever evolving grab bag of rumours, myths, facts, lies, and spin that support your side — prior to the trial. All that stuff was out there and much of it presented quite credibly. But now the trial has occurred and some of your “facts” must now have been demonstrated to be incorrect.

Why am I still reading, for example, that the police believed the washing machine had been recently used — AND that the police did NOT believe the washing machine had been recently used? ONE of those “facts” must have been shown to be untrue by now.

Footprints: the police believed some of the footprints were Raf/Amanda’s — the police later changed their minds on that --- no they didn’t. Which is it? Again, whatever version of this “fact” was not presented at court needs to be dropped from your repertoires, but I’m still reading both versions.

I am not looking for answers to these specific questions in response to my post. Not from a bunch of liars and spinners. I just want to tell you that if the folks on both sides don’t edit their “fact” lists based on what the authorities actually did finally present, there is no credibility to any of your arguments and you all look silly.

I’ll have a look at “Frank’s” site and leave the rest of you to your game (the posters are playing the same game on his comments section — but I’m sure by now it’s all the same people).

Have fun.

[FOA websites] "look, feel and 'read' just like the sites run by '9/11 truthers", people that deny the moon landings, UFO freaks, JFK nuts & Sarah Palin supporters"

Amanda's detractors believe that the major media outlets of the Western world are not checking their facts before reporting on the case.

Peter Quennell posts photos and essays about places Meredith might have visited had she lived. Contributors to his site write poems and post music videos in Meredith's honor.

I can substantiate those claims. Can you substantiate yours?

"I am also saying - and please don't try to twist again what I say - that a charachter assassination did not take place in the Italian media, and I ask you to quote a prove of the contrary."

I'm afraid I can't prove it, Guest, but I can offer what Barbie Nadeau wrote about it:

"These were the scraps of information that stoked a media frenzy in Italy. Even before Amanda and Raffaele were officially charged with murder, they were on the front page of every newspaper in the country, usually under headlines such as “Amanda, Sangue e Sorrisi”(Amanda, blood and smiles) and “Uomini e Segreti, Amanda Racconta” (Men and secrets, Amanda tells all). As Amanda’s and Raffaele’s popularity grew, so did the hunger for information about them. Amanda’s face graced the cover of Italy’s most popular grocery aisle glossies, and the murder was the subject of four quick books by Italian journalists. One of the books even came with an animation of the alleged crime on DVD."

Perhaps that's not character assassination, but there's no denying there was an abundance of inappropriate, irrelevant and negative descriptions of Amanda in the Italian media.

"First, the Italian public is not interested nor involved towards this story, they just know the trial exists."

The Italian public consumed the media mentioned above, and they named Amanda their celebrity of the year.

I am trying to understand what you wrote about prejudice in the Italian legal system, but I'm having trouble Are you saying the jury panel at the trial would not have been influenced by the media and if they had they would not have let that inform their decision?

I don't know if we are talking about the same FBI agent but I will be posting some excellent insight from a retired FBI agent on my site in the next couple of days. This report was written for Injustice in Perugia.

I looked at the link someone posted yesterday about the footprints identified with luminol. It says that the footprints were not tested for blood but they were tested for Meredith’s DNA and it was negative! Can that be true?? So if it wasn’t Meredith’s blood, then whose was it? I never heard that Amanda Knox or Sollecito had any bloody wounds. But it also says the luminol isn’t a positive test for blood and it could have been something else other than blood and that the footprints weren’t distinct enough to prove they were Amanda’s. That’s a huge change in the story if it’s true!

I thought sure I read somewhere that the footprints had been positively identified as Amanda Knox’s prints in Meredith’s blood. They couldn’t say that if it wasn’t true, could they? That was the clincher for me. If it’s true then she is lying and she is guilty. I didn’t need to hear any more evidence or excuses. But if it’s not true then I don’t know what to think. I’ve got to go back and look at everything again. Is that injustice site lying?

Does anyone have a link to a certified source that positively confirms it was proven that the luminol footprints were Amanda’s prints in Meredith’s blood? I need to confirm that so I can go back to that http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/ site and show them.

"It says that the footprints were not tested for blood but they were tested for Meredith’s DNA and it was negative! Can that be true??"

Some of the six full footprints were tested for blood, some were positive to Amanda's DNA, some were not positive to any DNA, while one partial luminol-footprint was positive both to Meredith and Amanda's DNA.
The bathmat footprint was positive to Meredith's DNA.

The experts stated that the performed DNA test would turn out a positive result anyway only in 50% of cases, if the stain is at the origin made in blood.

The court finds out that the footprints were proven to be in blood. This proof does not come from the DNA test alone, which probably would give anyway a result that is positive only in some of the stains, and when positive this would be attacked by the defence with a claim of other causes.
The proof is the result of putting together all properties of those footprints.
First, their logical properties due to their distribution and kind (bare foot in analogy with the bathmat blood foot which is also bare, spatial distribution (isolated prints) also in analogy with the bathmat, all of them right foots, their being in luminol and cleaned up).
Second, the logical properties related to the substance luminol-reacting, in relation with their distribution: no substance was found in the flat used in such extent with this properties to explain the wide distribution of the footprints in the house, nor any other evidence of such a substance of an allegedly common-use was found anywhere else in the house, but in those footprints and in blood stains. No precse hypothesis for the substance was given by the defence neither.
Third, the footprints' measurements: one of footprints on the floor is identical to the bathmant print and also identical to Sollecito's foot. The defence expert was busted as not credible in his arguments as he tried to dismiss this finding.

"Fiorenza Sarzanini published an instant book, but this was made with authentic material which did belong to the trial file."

It included Amanda's prison diary, whihc did not belong to the trial file. Recently she was awarded damages as a result of the publication. All the news media also published Amanda's coerced "confession," which the Supreme Court later ruled inadmissible for the trial. Everybody had already read it by that time, though.

"The Italian media collected information which might well have been irrelevant, but not necessarily negative. The negative balance of this information seems to be just a matter of your guess. I don't see an argument for this."

Well, I'm afraid there is a very strong argument for this. All the coverage of Amanda's sex life contributed to the image of Amanda presented in court by the prosecution, who called her "Luciferina," which is very definitely a negative portrayal. Amanda's private sex life, presented in a negative way, was a strong enough focus of the news about her that she felt compelled in her very first trial testimony to counter the presentation the prosecution had made about her novelty vibrator.

"And the word "irrelevant" anyway defines by itself that, while this could be a topic of entertainment for readers to sell mystery and story, this being irrelevant would be of no interest for judges sitting in a jury panel."

It would be nice if the word "irrelevant" implied the information would be discarded, but alas, that is not realistic. If people weren't interested in gossip and lurid details, there would be no tabloid media. Once someone has learned something about a topic, it can't be unlearned. It can be replaced with more accurate knowledge, but that wasn't happening at the time the trial started. Replacing negative images of Amanda with positive ones is essentially the goal of the PR campaign.

The prosecution used lurid, tabloidesque details about Amanda and her roommates' alleged relationships in order to establish a motive for the killing. They did this without having having any forensic evidence proving she had committed the crime, because they knew it would have a powerful effect on the jury panel, not that it would be "of no interest."

I see what you're getting at with your last paragraph, and theoretically it makes sense. I can't help but believe the deck is stacked against the defendant, however, when they are required to counter a mass media campaign. If that were not the case, the police and prosecutors would not feel it was in their best interest to share vast amounts of what could be "classified information" with the press.
It is apparent the prosecution considered the media their partners in making their case.

Now, Gordo, I think you know better than to claim my comment is "absurd" without providing any valid supporting arguments. Otherwise it just reflects poorly on you.

Speaking of arguments, your first sentence implies that everyone who is on the computer tonight is home alone. An accurate appraisal? I think not. And trust me -- a Friday night at home is something a lot of people look forward to, at least in Seattle.

Thanks for the offer, although I don't know why you would want to spend any time with someone as mendacious and dim-witted as I. I would love to go to Europe some time, but at the moment I'm one of those people Al-Fakh talked about, who boycott Italy as if they could afford to go there, but can't.

If I could, though, you would be among the first people I look up. You have shown that you really know how to treat a lady.

Al, I am so totally down with your project! As I mentioned to Gargoyle, I don't have the funds to make the trip, but I will be more than happy to participate in the focus group. Already I can see the tour playing out kind of like a Perugian version of "Pirates of the Caribbean."

You'll want to make some general rules for your guests as they visit the various locations on the itinerary. First, no shoes allowed. No bathroom breaks. No phone calls, of course. (Penalty for non-compliance: Two stiff whacks on the back of the head.)

I love the games you've come up with, but may I suggest a scavenger hunt, as well? The only rule is that all contestants have to use their "investigative instinct." Whoever finds the SHINIEST knife wins.

How about a mock line-up? The object of the game is to pick a suspect and have him thrown into prison, no questions asked. Whoever picks the WRONGEST suspect is the winner.

The line-up, of course, is followed by the mock trial -- that's a must. This is where each guest is allowed to take the witness stand and testify about their experiences on the tour. They will be required to claim they did not go into any of the rooms they actually went into, and they have to lie about what time it was when they did it. Whoever fools the most people wins a free confession with the prison chaplain.

Finally, those who have not yet won a prize can take the extra credit trivia quiz (multiple choice).

Sample question: What does the number 19 signify?

A.) The number of sleepy Italian judges who agreed the verdict was correct
B.) The number of forensic scientists who signed a testimonial stating the DNA evidence was a farce
C. ) The number of c-r-r-r-razy eyewitnesses the prosecutors put on the stand
D.) The number of Italians who did not read Amanda's prison diary
E.) All of the above

Well, that's all for now. I'll keep working on it and get back to you. Should be fun!

An no, there is no statute of limitations prohibiting the collection of DNA traces 46 days (or even 46 YEARS) after the initial sweep of a crime scene.

Turns out Raffaele's knife collection included TWO knives with 4 cm blades that match the bloody sheet imprint (and 2 of the 3 neck wounds).

He ditched them before the police could get a warrant, BUT witnesses testified at trial that they saw these knives in Raffaele's collection (and possession) before the murder.

Very interesting, no?

It's all about to come out - an English translation of the 427 page judgment is about to hit the net.

A US journalist is bound to pick up on it sooner or later.

Adios, "FOA"!

"For me, the central key evidence was those definitely identified bloody footprints. Now I feel like the rug has been yanked out from under me. I think there’s a very strong possibility Knox and Sollecito could be innocent."

It is interesting that you believe the least likely possibility is the most likely possibility.

You remained me of Amanda Knox's relatives.

"OK, so we know the judge ruled this crime unpremeditated. Now you want us to believe that not only did Raffaele bring his kitchen knife over to Amanda's for no good reason but he also brought a couple of others from his collection? Were they intending to butcher barnyard animals?"

How about planning a sexual assault, no?

If you do not have a gun to intimidate the victim a knife could be / and has been used.

First of all even if the kitchen knife wasn't the murder weapon and the investigators were totally wrong on the knife, as the FOAkers say, there would be still plenty of evidence to convict AK and RS.

There are numerous reasons why his knife could have been brought to the house, including very innocent reasons. Maybe they wanted to cook there and maybe the girls didn't have a good chef knife like that at the house in via Pergola. Or maybe Amanda had borrowed it for the Halloween night before (to dress like a vampire or something). In other words, it doesn't have to be for a premeditated murder or rape they intended to carry out.

Regarding the reason why it wasn't thrown away after the murder (assuming that knife was indeed the murder weapon) the reason given by the court in the 'motivazioni' is very sensible.

The nice chef knife didn't belong to Sollecito, it belonged to the landlord of his apartment. Throwing it away would have certainly caused suspicion because the landlord would have certainly found out eventually. Replacing it with an identical one (assuming one had the time and assuming that knife were easily found in the market) would have also caused suspicion, because investigators could have certainly have found out about a recent purchase occurred shortly after the murder. Both options were too risky, therefore Raffaele and Amanda decided that the safest option was to clean it thoroughly and keep it in the kitchen.

I don't expect to convince the FOAkers cult that the knife was indeed one of the two knives used in the murder (they already made up their mind), however, for those who haven't read the report, that's the reason given by the court to justify the fact that the kitchen knife wasn't not thrown away, but rather cleaned and kept. A very sensible explanation if the knife was indeed used to kill Mez.

Stop making up stories, Al and admit it, they come up with the wrong verdict. They ate at Raffaele's apartment not Amanda's. I doubt Amanda's house was without knives and I strongly doubt they would cook anything on a random evening they were given off at 8:00PM that needed special knife attention- they were college kids so they were not going to be filleting Dover sole. If she or anyone else had used the knife as part of a Halloween costume it certainly would have been noticed...and it was not. The knife DNA analysis is pathetic anyway, the first rule of science is REPRODUCIBILITY. It does not mean anything unless you can do it twice and get exactly the same thing. I have read some reports suggesting that running the electrophoresis twice is the same thing as doing the experiment twice. People who say such nonsense have no clue about DNA analysis.

Raffaele only knew Amanda for 6 days. SIX DAYS.

Amanda was at Raffaele's apartment for most of that time. (Edda confirms this herself.)

Raffaele was only in the cottage long enough to "glance at Meredith twice" (according to Raffaele's sister).

So how does his DNA wind up inside Meredith's bedroom?

They couldn't even find his DNA in AMANDA'S bedroom!

Then there is the issue of the AMOUNT of DNA in the traces: The DNA traces of the "other 3" were of an amount experts expect to find from transfer in shared laundry machines.

Raffaele's DNA, however, appeared in a quantity LARGER than would be expected through shared laundry.

Indeed, how does his DNA wind up inside the washing machine that Meredith used to launder her bra?

They were only together for 6 DAYS - at HIS apartment.

[Not to mention, "shared laundry" duties as between Amanda & Raffaele sounds a bit of a stretch - in the first week of an affair??? Not likely!]

Could his defense team show that he did his laundry at the cottage in that time? No.

Indeed, the best DNA expert Raffaele's rich dad could buy ended up quitting the defense team over the bra clasp.

(BTW said expert identified Amanda's DNA on the clasp as well !)

C'mon Knox Clan - you know she's involved - help her do the right thing - continuing to lie for the next 60 years will destroy her mind & soul.

"When is the next donation drive happening and were?"

It’s ongoing.
http://www.amandadefensefund.org/Donations.html

I have a system to be sure I don’t forget. I made up a “bill” with a payment coupon and printed out several to put with my other bills every month so it gets to be routine like paying the mortgage or the car payment.
This was my own idea for my personal use and is not in any way connected to or requested by the Knox family or any organization that supports them. The “Supporters of Amanda Knox” name and logo are my own inventions. I just thought it was a clever way to jog my memory and anyone is welcome to borrow it. The amount printed on the imitation “bill” may be changed to suit and is not intended to suggest what might fit into someone else’s budget. I’m sure any amount would be greatly appreciated.
http://mysite.verizon.net/vze1063v4/Dues/SupportersOfAmandaKnoxDues.htm

I appreciate the tip, Guest Post #194. I'll get over there eventually to check it out. I hate any website with a black background and I especially hate PMF because of the way they reprint everyone's comments 12 zillion times until they're smaller than the amount of fake DNA on the blade of the kitchen knife.

Hey, Al -- what happened to the tour? Is it on the back burner already? If you need money, you can always fall back on your oil wells.

Mary H, on the blade of the knife there was not "fake DNA". There was LCN DNA of Meredith Kercher. It was a small amount, but the perfect matching of Meredith is undisputable. Not even Amanda's attorneys are contesting this fact. You can get a perfect profile of a person even with one cell. So the DNA was not "fake". It was very real !!

Either that DNA ended up on the blade because she was stabbed or because it was contaminated, but the fact that there was DNA on the blade is undisputable and was never even contested by defense.

On the other end, if it was contaminated, then defense would have to explain and prove HOW it was contaminated.

Lastly, non-repetitive testing require the presence of all parts. The court notified all parts but defense never showed up, so by law on that given date they had to proceed with the testing and the notified parts were considered as present.

Defense did not show up for a strategic reason. Either way (proof in favour or against their client) would have made no difference, therefore by not showing up, if evidence was against their client, they could always claim contamination.
It is all a defense strategy. Attorneys are not stupid ... but neither is DNA evidence.