NOT EVEN THE CALUMNY HAS REASON TO EXIST
In the sweet breeze of freedom
As we know there has never been anything against Amanda and Raffaele, and all previous judges condemned them because they absolutely wanted to believe the testimony of a couple of cops and strange people.
As we were saying, in a third or fourth degree of judgement, Amanda could only have been acquitted. Then it happened that a favorable DNA review arrived, and it just sped things up, so that she could be acquitted for the main charge already in the second degree.
Amanda was acquitted of murder, rape, theft, possession and transportation of knife, “for not having committed the fact”. She was acquitted of simulation of crime (the break-in that the prosecution thought was fake) “because the fact doesn’t exist” .
So, if the fake break-in doesn’t exist, it means it wasn’t fake, it was real: Rudi really broke the window from outside and entered, or tried to enter from it. (Did we need a Corte d’Assise d’Appello to say that?)
The jury, then, fully accepted the defense position of Amanda and Raffaele as totally uninvolved in the crime, and of the crime being the classic robbery gone wrong. Hellmann will explain it with his motivations.
Remember the day she was convicted? I wrote that the Massei’s verdict was opening the way to the acquittal (because if you give only 25 years for a crime like that, it means you are not sure). This time, for the conviction for slander, it’s the same.
The jury, as we know, condemned Amanda for calunnia, the slander against Patrick Lumumba. But Hellmann’s verdict is opening the way for the acquittal in the Supreme Court, even for that residual, imaginary, “crime”.
IF SHE KILLED SHE SLANDERED
IF SHE DIDN’T KILL SHE DIDN’T SLANDER
The slander against Patrick, indeed, had meaning only when inserted in that impossible accusation theory: she had killed Meredith (!), but she was discovered (by those great investigators, those living lie-detectors, endowed with superpowers, able to have prodigious intuitions and perform mind-reading techniques….).
So, to save herself, she instantly thought up an ingenious self-defense strategy, and accused Patrick, exchanging one black man for another black man… (The she-devil bewitched all those experienced investigators, who ran like kids to arrest Patrick…).
The Great Temptress
Not on a broom
Flying witch…
Such a reconstruction is, of course, nothing but a fantasy made by the accusers. Backward people who think that we reason the way they reason, who think that our world is their world, their medieval world, where people may consider people first by their race. They don’t know that persons like Amanda, and the all of us, if we are here, belong to the world of freedom, of equality, of science, of sport, of art, of technology, of internet, and we don’t care who is black and who is white.
To save ourselves we could exchange one man with another man we know didn’t have an alibi (and Amanda couldn’t have done it in that occasion with Patrick since she didn’t know if he had an alibi or not, indeed he had it).
But we could never “exchange a black man for a black man” because we don’t see the being black as a distinctive quality.
It’s clear, instead, who can make such a distinction, who can theorize a satanic rite, who can believe in someone’s prodigious intuition: people who come from their local realities, the Perugia of Mignini, the Gubbio of Patrick’s lawyer Pacelli, realities in which until a few years ago there was no one single black person, in which peasants really believe in devils, she-devils, biblical temptresses, extraordinary actresses, witches, intuitions, prodigies… in which people may really happen to do black masses.
Shameless on the Stand
LOUD
and not necessarily right
(Nikita Xhroushiov defending USSR…(in NY!))
Theories such as the one of the satanic rite or of the one of a-black-man-for-a-black-man, are only good to reflect the cultural background of those who made them. They didn’t just say such theories: they screamed them, proud, convinced to have cracked the case, certain to be saying something intelligent!
They didn’t realize that the audience was different this time, that it wasn’t made up of the usual couple of peasants, the usual local lawyers and journalists, prone, to hanging on any of the words of those they consider bigwigs in their town…
The great prosecutors, so used to have full consent from their submissive audience, weren’t ashamed to SCREAM such ludicrous theories in front of people belonging to the modern world.
We tried to suggest to them to take it easy, in their own interest, to prevent them to make themselves ridiculous in front of the whole world, but there has been nothing to do. They kept yelling until the end!
In their fantasy, a girl who grew up in the high-tech city of Microsoft could suddenly indulge in a satanic rite with human sacrifice… a girl coming from the multicultural city of Jimi Hendrix and Quincy Jones could have the thought of exchanging a black man for a black man…
In their imagination, a robbery gone wrong became a black mass… Science became matriciana… logic became carbonara…
Trust Them Again
Idol and Master
Grand Inquisitor Tomas de Torquemada
(Decried by history, he’s still someone in Gubbio…)
Should we too, congratulate such great lawyers, as all locals do? Should we too say that they are great prosecutors, great judges, as even Knox’s Perugian lawyer Luciano Ghirga kept saying until the last day? Should we join them in the society of fake compliments?
They didn’t listen to anyone. They had me right there, warning them they were going towards an abyss, and instead of using me they kicked me out from their offices when the great cops, their own ruin, needed to enter, with a new bogus to sell…
I was an idiot, of course, and that could even be possible. The problem is that everyone else was an idiot. Writers, scientists, politicians, lawyers from America, from UK, from Italy. All wonderful people, people of large humanity and altruism, were, to Mignini and associates, all a bunch of imbeciles, all on Curt Knox’s payroll (even Donald Trump…).
Amanda, who didn’t think for herself, who called the police because she was worried for her girl friend, was a liar…
You know, instead, who were the right ones? Who were the ones to be trusted? Napoleone, Chiachiera, Finzi, Gubbioti.. those highly cultured men and women, versed in science and endowed with supernatural powers… those who ran to arrest Lumumba, those who said that Amanda and Raffaele called the 112 after the police arrived, those who said there was glass on the clothes, that the knife smelled of bleach, that there were buses on November 1…
Where do you think the prosecutor who doesn’t prosecute such respectable and awarded people will end up?
Slander for Now
So, the slander against Patrick can exist only if Amanda killed Meredith. Since that accusation theory collapsed, the slander as well disappears. Amanda didn’t kill Meredith, therefore that slander has no reason to exist from any point of view. Amanda did no slander. And her version, quite creepy, about why she signed that piece of paper, gets fully confirmed.
I wish those who criticize that girl to be one day sequestered in a room, surrounded by a pack of yelling people, who deny you a lawyer, a judge, a friend, a relative, who trick you with false information, who insult you, scare you, threaten you, slap you in the had, who don’t leave you alone until you repeated them what they want to hear and until you sign that piece of paper…
That day, probably, they will understand.
How did the jury get to condemn her for slander, then? We don’t know what happened in that chamber. Maybe the popular judges voted guilty for the slander and Hellmann and Zanetti had to comply. Therefore they will have to justify, in the motivation document, something they don’t agree with! (call it contradictions of a jury-trial with a system that motivates the sentence…).
More probably, they were kind of afraid of giving a full acquittal, and they followed the tradition:
Acquitted by Stages, an Italian Tradition
Law is not an exact science. Judges are human, they have feelings, they may be influenced by the general sentiment, and they may have some fear in changing completely your status from what all previous judges had established. They need to do it step by step, and, since the system, with three or more degrees of judgement, allows it, they do it all the time.
So, when you are thought guilty at the beginning, but you are innocent, they usually don’t acquit you immediately: they condemn you in first degree, they halve it in second degree, they acquit you in the end.
Please, Condemn Us
Even defense lawyers may comply with such a system. Amanda’s defense didn’t ask for the acquittal for slander! “La calunnia c’è”, “The slander occurred”, Ghirga, the great congratulator, managed to say in his closing arguments!
It’s almost like if he –due the gravity of the situation, due the need to obtain freedom– proposed a compromise and, instead of telling the judges, “Be glorious”, “Shock your town”, “Go down in the history, and cancel this whole absurdity”, he proposed them: “Satisfy the accusers, save their face: condemn us for slander… but acquit us for the main charge”.
The Strategy of the Appeasement
Matter of tastes. There are those who like compromises, things done little by little. We, if we are here, are different, we don’t like the half-measures: we like the shock.
History teaches, indeed: the appeasement is useless…
“It’s okay” Lord Chamberlain meant: “you can remilitarize the Rhineland”, “you can seize Austria”, “you can invade the Sudetes”.. and Hitler made him happy…
Raffaele’s lawyers dropped the diplomacy in the end, and accused cops and witnesses. And Raffaele has been fully acquitted.
Ghirga, instead, said “it’s okay, you can condemn us for slander”… and Hellmann made him happy…
So, the tradition of acquitting by stages is being followed, even if, luckily, before the schedule, before all the trials:
pre-trial judges ruled that Amanda was dangerous, that she could kill again (!).
The first degree granted her the extenuating circumstances.
The second degree canceled the murder.
The third degree should cancel the slander, and make official what has always been possession of hers: a perfect innocence.
Guilty by Papers, Innocent by Logic
The problem is how the Supreme Court can technically demolish that last absurd conviction. The Supreme Court checks the papers of a trial. In front of a piece of paper with an accusation to Patrick Lumumba, signed Amanda Knox, they should say that everything is regular. But it depends how that signature was put on that piece of paper.
The Supreme Court also checks the logical validity of a sentence. And, as we have seen, Amanda falsely accusing Patrick doesn’t make any sense, while her own version about why she put a signature on that piece of paper has a full logical consistency.
Slander is when you go to the police to report someone you know innocent of a crime, not when you go to accompany a friend but a pack attacks you and tricks you into stating or signing something.
The lack of logical validity, though, may be not enough to overturn that discordant conviction. While waiting for the Supreme Court, in one or two years, Knox lawyers should take some initiatives, beyond the appeasement. They should shed some light on what they have done to that girl in that place, otherwise the risk is that paper prevails over logic… And that would be unacceptable, since she has done nothing, and the truth is that she’s been only helping to find Meredith’s killer.
Bewitching practices…
THE TRUTH: SHE’S BEEN ONLY HELPING
Remember that day, Steffy? You wrote to Mez, you told her to watch out because the news said that a girl was killed in Perugia. You got no response, since she was that girl.
Amy was also continuously writing to her, she needed her book back, “I really need that book”, she wrote her the third time… She started to almost be mad at her because she wasn’t answering.
And Amanda?
Amanda as well was calling her, and she got no answer. But she didn’t think of herself, she didn’t get mad. She forgot about her trip, about the nice weekend she was supposed to enjoy with Raffaele. Why? Because she was worried for Mez.
She called Raffaele, she called Filomena, she called the police, she gave the alarm. When the postal police arrived by chance, she asked them to enter the house.
She and Raffaele told the 112: “the problem is that there’s a locked door”. It’s recorded, Steffy. That was the real problem for them, that Meredith wasn’t answering, not that someone had entered the house. Mez was discovered so early only thanks to Amanda.
Your friends, instead, said that she called the police after the police arrived. Good friends, Steffy. Remember how kind they were with you when she was in jail, when they had her condemned? And then? Did they disappear? Did they leave you alone after having ruined you too? Good friends Steffy, say a big thank you to them. Not to Amanda, to them.
Enter your satanism here…
Frank, another outstanding job! This statement should be plastered everywhere as it seems to be such a key point to those who blast Amanda for accusing Patrick: I wish those who criticize that girl to be one day sequestered in a room, surrounded by a pack of yelling people, who deny you a lawyer, a judge, a friend, a relative, who trick you with false information, who insult you, scare you, threaten you, slap you in the had, who don’t leave you alone until you repeated them what they want to hear and until you sign that piece of paper…’
Exactly! Tell them!
Frank, I’m spreading the word. Interesting how once they are faced with a statement like this, they have no logical response!
Fantastic Frank. My first post here.
A perfect innocence – that says it all.
I congratulate you.
While Meredith’s “friends” ran away, Amanda stayed to help find her friend’s killer.
Her betrayal by the police is intolerable – those responsible must be brought to justice for abusing their trusted positions.
Great post Frank. The tactics used by the police and prosecutors against Amanda Knox are enough to have had this case thrown out by any Judge that is upholding the LAW.
Take a look at this story of a woman (another Amanda!), in my hometown of Montreal, who was acquitted of murder by the Supreme Court of Canada due to police misconduct.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2011/10/14/supreme-court-acquits-que_n_1010885.html
Thanks Frank:-) As always, great writing!!
Hope you are well!!
Heather H
You know Frank I have never agreed that AK lawyers did a good job. In fact I think they were not so good at all. These statements of Ghirga don’t surprise me in the least. This defense has never been on the attack and they simply let the false accusations and lies, and foolish tricks that even a blind man could see to just float past them which was a mistake. In fact in the appeal I think Zanetti was the best defense lawyer because Knox lawyers did not ask the correct questions, but Zanetti was there to save them. Ghirga is certainly a Perugia crony in the clique and so allows his client to take the blame for something …a crime they say ….that is impossible as you point out. I think another important reason for the Supreme Court to toss out this slander case is that this paper they have in front of them was obtained illegally due to Knox being denied a lawyer and an interpreter (not a police employee).
It was my understanding that the Supreme Court already ruled this interrogation illegal. If this is correct then how can statements obtained from some illegal action by police then be used to convict Knox of any crime? Amandas lawyers should have complained to the Supreme Court back when Massei allowed Lumumbas case to be brought up during the murder trail and thus by-pass the SC ruling which would seem to me to be something that the SC of Rome would not be all that happy about. After all it is clear Massei completely ignored the ruling of the Supreme Court.
It is obvious that the police abused AK and forced a statement from her for a number of reasons that anyone with a logical mind would see. Simply add up the stupid police moves.
1. They state that AK was not a suspect (do Italian police tap all phones of people who are just witnesses?)
2. Where did all these police 12 plus investigators just happen to come from on that night? Were some Romans out for a drive and decide to stop by the Questura? 36 signed the paper the next morning…so many heroes all in one place and just for a witness ?
3. They recorded a phone call from Filomena to Amanda at 10 PM on Nov 5th but then it seems every recorder at the Questura broke all at once…No RS recording, No AK recording, No Patrick Lumumba recording….amazing co-incidence no?
4. All the people from 3 above were also denied lawyers that night and the next day. I thought Italy was a civilized country and had a protection for the people and that they must have a lawyer. Where is my wrong thinking?
5. Why did the “poor black man” change his story about being beaten by police that he described in such detail in the DM?
6. Who kept Lumumba bar closed for months (just to the point of bankruptcy I expect)?
7. Why keep this bar closed? Did the police need Lumumba to say something nice about them? It appears the little “trick” worked.
If the Supreme Court can look at these things and keep the slander then Italy is lost…truly lost.
You start to figure, man…
I’ve just finished reading Frank’s blog right from the start (Nov 6, 2007) and that has been the strong impression I got too, namely that the defence did not do a good job in the original trial. Frank had every praise, for instance, for Rudy’s defence.
Is it unreasonable to suggest that a more aggressive defence could have got acquitted in the first trial? I’d be interested in Frank’s opinion on that.
Hi Frank,
This is my first time commenting here but I have been reading for a very long time and just wanted to say thanks for the great reading. When this story first broke in the New York Times, I looked at the photo of the cottage and I said to my husband: That looks like the view from Andreas’ (our son’s) window. I was close, because our son lived at #10 Via della Pergola.
From the beginning this story was very personal to me because I too, had a child who went to learn the language (at Stranieri) and also to “find himself” in Italy. So when I see what happened to Mez, Amanda and Raffaele it just breaks my heart. In the case of my son, he’s still there. He just bought the bar Dempsey’s and I think his Italian is pretty good these days. Maybe you know him?
Like everyone else, when I read about this “confession” I thought: WTF? How could an honor student with no prior history of crime end up a sex-crazed murderess in less than a month? Fortunately for me I was in PG when the first trial started and spoke to a friend of my son’s who was in the courtroom as an interpreter everyday and he said that there was no way in hell she or Raffaele were guilty.
I don’t understand what all these guilters find so hard to fathom? Amanda was a kid. Can you imagine the situation she was put in? The new mantra of the guilters is that she must be guilty because she accused an innocent man. Give me a break! Playing the race card is particularly despicable and to your point, just illustrates the ignorance of the small-minded prosecutor and his disciples.
Thank you for all you have gone through to bring us this story. You really should write a book or do a documentary.
SG
The word is small…
Others had other sources, telling them they were guilty… And screwed up….
Spectacular Frank! Your a never-ending surprise, and added to that, besides your extraordinary fantastic Journalist skills, you always have the best unique photos…
I don’t think its fair to say Girha did not do an extraordinary defense job. UNDERSTANDING has been a key factor in this simple complicated case. Lawyers in Europe don’t work and think in the same perspective as American lawyers or other lawyers in other parts of the world. Lawyers in Europe tend to be like mediators ( in a way) and are not as aggressive as American Lawyers for example. The system is different and this needs to be understood to have a proper perspective. However logic does yell for complete elimination of all wrongful or untruthful statements which the prosecution established as undeniable “truths”
Magnini’s prosecution team, the pack, is the Antithesis of truth and logic and Frank is a Genius in sarcastically describing their ridiculousness. Be safe Frank!
I truly hope you write a book about this case.
Also I find it quite out of place for people and the Kerchers to criticize and say its not fair for Amanda to make money out of publishing her experience…when in First Place it Wasn’t Fair for her to be jailed for 4 years for something she did not do! So the perspective is wrong, she wouldn’t be making money out of Meredith’s death, the focus here is her wrongful conviction and all she went through! She sure does have a right to let people know the injustice she suffered and to be known for the real person she is.
This is a story of Greed and Power fading Law and Truth….to the point of obnoxious ridiculousness!
Definetely I recognize him the understanding…
,-
I wish those who criticize that girl to be one day sequestered in a room, surrounded by a pack of yelling people, who deny you a lawyer, a judge, a friend, a relative, who trick you with false information, who insult you, scare you, threaten you, slap you in the had, who don’t leave you alone until you repeated them what they want to hear and until you sign that piece of paper…
That day, probably, they will understand.- >
well said Frank…
I had a family member go through one of these, and it was even with a stocking mask as the bad one, then the good one came in later to tell them to sign, give them anything and they could go.
I never would believe such a story of the police station, except this time it was family….and then others said the same thing. But it wasnt murder, no one was put in prison, only threatened with rape in prison if they didnt tell them what they wanted to hear.
Others are not so lucky, they actually go to prison mistakenly because they crumble, instead of laugh at the show.
I too was in a false arrest situation. It never resulted in a sentence — in fact, there wasn’t even a trial — yet the officers claimed to have “mounds of evidence” and “hundreds of eye witnesses” against me and that they’d been watching (meaning spying on) me for quite some time. In the face of those odds, an innocent person can actually BELIEVE they have done something wrong. I’m so glad they never got me to sign anything, because if they had I would have been cooked… although they were obviously lying about the evidence and the eye witnesses because I was never asked to go to trial. Still, I had an extremely difficult time trusting people after that encounter, suspecting that anyone I met could have been one of those “eye witnesses”.
Incidentally, those four cops mysteriously disappeared not long after they came after me, which tells me they are probably not on the force anymore. Might have had something to do with that other suspect they were strip-searching in public…
“So, the slander against Patrick can exist only if Amanda killed Meredith.”
Is that actually the case under Italian law? At least, according to the principals of law here in the U.S., it is definitely not the case. Slander would be defined as claiming as true something that is false, with the end result that your lie harmed another person. According to that standard, Knox objectively committed slander against Lumumba (by the standards of U.S. law) by claiming something to be true (that she was in the apartment at the time of Kercher’s death, and could place Lumumba in the room with the victim) which in fact was false at every level (at the very least, Knox was not at the apartment at the time) and that wound up harming Lumumba.
Note that I’m talking about OBJECTIVE slander as a fact — whether Knox should bear legal and/or moral responsibility for the slander is quite another matter, and I would argue that, considering the brainwashing techniques used by the police during the interrogation, she shouldn’t be held responsible for anything she signed at the time. (I’m sure that, if the police had wished it, they probably could have gotten a “confession” from her that she and Sollecito were actually aliens from outer space in about the same time frame it took them to get her statements.) Still, according to the system of laws I’m familiar with, she would have been held to have objectively committed slander but not be responsible for it due to mitigating circumstances. Does Italian law really differ that much, in that acquittal on the murder charge automatically invalidates the slander charge?
Indeed I wasn’t talking of the objectivity of it. We, but, especially, her lawyers, should really stop talking of the objective circumstances of it. Talking by the book can be devastating sometimes, as it has been in this case.
We should only talk about the subjective circumstances of that slander. And the subjective circumstances say that there’s no slander or, talking precisely, that it’s not punishable.
It’s like if they force you to steal something under threat. Yes, objectively the theft occurred, but it’s not punishable.
Just, if you are afraid to say why you made that theft, you get condemned…
With regard to the conviction for falsely implicating Patrik Lumumba, she gave that statement under duress. “Memories of flashbacks” even sounds manipulative. Even convicting her of giving that false statement is like the Arabs whipping a woman because she had been raped. Those who did the questioning should be held liable.
Excellent posting Frank
Let’s hope they’re held accountable in the third trial, if there is one.
JD Walley,
I disagree that Amanda would be guilty of slander here in the USA. For slander there needs to knowledge and intent as well as proof that harm was done. In this case the police told Amanda they knew she was covering for someone and that someone was Lumumba. They had proof that they were in the cottage. It becomes an impossible situation for Amanda to resolve even in her own mind especially since the interpreter was telling her that she was repressing memories due to shock. I don’t believe for a moment that Amanda wrote or ever understood what was written in a statement for her to sign. (a case could be made that she barely understood Italian at that point).
She had no knowledge except for what the police were telling her they knew was true. So it was impossible, given the situation she was in to have real knowledge of what Lumumba may have been guilty of. Nor did she have intent to maliciously harm him or anyone else.
We can sit here and state that she should have simply kept quiet but that most likely would have brought more slaps to the head and more abuse and so this result was always down the path laid out by police. No court in the USA, given the circumstances of being refused a lawyer and food and water would ever find her guilty of slander. Impossible. The burden of proof would be on Lumumba and I think it would be impossible to prove that she had intent to harm anyone.
I personally think it is a mistake of AK lawyers for not filing charges against Mignini and the Perugia police. I suppose they needed to get her out of jail first but now charges should be brought against this pack of wild animals. Screams were heard and testified to in court during that interrogation…stated by none other than Giobbi himself who was the ranking officer at the Questura on Nov 5 and 6th. Or do you suppose Amanda was screaming because her tea was too hot or her cake was stale?
Another great post Frank. I hope the Knox family has thanked you for everything you’ve done…
The British press is awful and unfair. They won’t leave Amanda alone. Still calling her “Foxy Knoxy” and calling her guilty… And the British public hangs on every word, like animals.
I think this is a brave blog, being that I blogged a similar (politically incorrect) blog speaking out to the Kercher family publicly and the hater’s had a hay day with it. I say ‘enough’ with their games. Of course everyone was and STILL IS horrified at what happened to innocent young Meredith Kercher. And yes, she was the victim who had it the worst, she DIED.And yes, it was a horrible horrible death. No greater pain. No one has ever disagreed with this….and yet over and over and over are these complaints…almost as if there is this a weird competitiveness for attention in the media from the Kercher family. No one has HAD to dispute Meredith’s innocence. No one has HAD to fight for her–she was innocent. She was completely innocent!!! And she is completely remembered! If nothing else, the whole media circus that surrounded this kept her memory in the Public. No one had to go to trial to see if they could prove Meredith guilty or innocent of something. They have (publicly at least) seemed to miss the entire point. Almost like a temper fit–it’s BIZARRE! They mistake Amanda’s media attention as being done by the evil Foxy Knoxy herself ,(and the $1,000,000. PR Firm) and then they get mad if Amanda or the family isn’t apologizing to the one’s who are wrongly accusing her! And well, actually they have, it’s just never acknowledged by the Kercher’s or the haters. They say it’s not about $$$, well it WAS to Maresca and of course, why, then,does Stephanie have her own separate suit? What up with that? The point is that we wanted the truth, not the lies that Maresca and Mignini tried to feed us. For a long time many could understand that this is a family grieving that needed answers quickly and were trusting of their Attorney. Understandable. But, with all that’s come out, and four years down the road, I’m sorry but I’ve seen too many other similar stories with the victim’s parents and families wanting the truth no matter what to expect anything less from them. I would expect better than this of them.I would expect that they read “the other side”. And if they did this, they would most definitely come up to the same conclusion that all( but a handful of “nuts”) have come up with. Logic and Science. Simple, really.
Literally, there’s no more excuses for false aims.
No one is in their position, and no one acts or reacts the same, but at this point come on already people. Really?
It’s true that Amanda cared very much for Meredith. What you don’t hear from all of the Nick Pisa’s and other Tabloid writers of the world was that Amanda cried more than all of her “friends” put together. Btw, Nick, if you read this, I totally take back everything I said nice to you in Perugia, you are a liar and a story whore. (sorry).
And for this, what did she receive? Amanda was made the guilty one. She could have left like everyone else did but she stayed to help her friend, all so that she could be the one ending up falsely accused. Her other friends didn’t stay to help. So, when they complain about ANYTHING…
I call B.S.!!! We all know this is true.
They apparently have no idea who the real Amanda is and it is their loss and their responsibility for what they helped convict her of. She cared.
They blame the wrong people and yes, it makes me mad. One lone wolf murderer–Rudy Guede–it ain’t rocket science. A small time drug dealer, a drifter, a thug. And no one gives a rat’s butt what color he is….he’s a thug no matter what color, or Nationality.
Oh, and he’ll be out to kill again, in say oh…about 4 yrs.–yeah. Who will be responsible for THIS? All who wrongly accused Amanda Knox and Rafaele Sollecito,, that’s who. I wouldn’t want that on my hands. End of rant. Thanks for a thought provoking blog, Frank. Blessings galore, keep it up.
A sad day to think of the nightmare that a police force and prosecutor unleashed on so many unsuspecting and innocent people, which in the end had nothing to do with bringing justice to the memory or family of Meredith.
Thank you Frank for your last couple of pieces. Please write a book on this!
Thank you Frank for clarifying the fact that Amanda was caught in a Catch 22 and the only reason that they would want to convict her of calumny was to save their own hides. I believe that this will come back to bite them on the ass though, since she was mistreated and the entire “confession” was forced by the police and then thrown out by the Supreme Court. How her lawyers could have stood for this charge is beyond me. I hope dearly that they will challenge this and have it thrown out too. Then the prosecution of the inquisitorial team should begin.
[...] sorry Steffy, I didn’t mean to embarrass you by revealing that you messaged Mez to watch out because a girl had been killed in Perugia. But I’m glad if that brought you to open [...]