Friday, February 25, 2011

Review of Lifetime’s Amanda Knox Story By Michael Wiesner

Review of Lifetime’s Amanda Knox Story
By Michael Wiesner

When Lifetime says The Amanda Knox Story is “based” on a true story, and “fact-driven” , they are using code to indicate the enormous amount of liberties taken with what actually happened. This should be obvious to any intelligent viewer who watches the combination of fact and fiction with a critical eye. After all, there are numerous scenes showing Amanda (Hayden) and/or Raffaele alone (unless Dornhelm was a fly on the wall). The big question is: How many Lifetime viewers will think hard about what they are viewing, and care about finding out the truth? A bigger a question: Is Dornhelm trying to make Amanda look guilty?

The movie is filled with factual errors, and takes great liberty with who says what. Amanda took the room in the cottage before Meredith, but traveled, so Meredith only moved in first. No biggie. Amanda’s mom, Edda Mellas, was at an airport in Switzerland, not in Perugia, when she got the call from stepdad Chris that Amanda was arrested. Rudy Guede was arrested on a train, not off the street: Also not serious. However, a friend in the coffee shop where Amanda worked called her Foxy Knoxy like it was a nickname: This is a lie! It gets worse!

The cottage used in the film, including the size of the room the murder took place in, was 50% bigger than the actual cottage: This is big – there was not space for 4 people in Meredith’s room, making the group murder theory very unlikely. Raffaele is shown secretively calling police after the Communication Police arrive: Major error – he called before, just like he told them! The movie implies he lied. There never was any incident of Amanda and Meredith greeting Rudy Guede on the steps in Perugia, or going to a party with him and smoking dope: This is a serious falsehood ! They barely knew him.

So the question becomes: How damaging will the liberties the film takes be to Amanda’s credibility? Will it get viewers to look closer at how weak the case is, or convince them there was a sound basis to put Amanda on trial? This is the big unknown!

The brutal interrogation scene, in which the accusation of Patrick was both dragged and coaxed out of Amanda is very accurate (except she wasn’t given water like Hayden was). The mob of police haranguing Amanda fully allows for the possibility she was hit on the back of the head. However, the film makes a serious omission: They fail to show Amanda writing out a statement in which she clearly says she may have imagined what she told the police. Later, when Mignini bellows out that Amanda allowed an innocent man to languish in prison by not retracting the statement (somewhat ironic – if not hypocritical), the film fails to make clear that Amanda had immediately retracted the statement as best she could while locked in solitary confinement.

Much more serious is how the film deals with accusations that Amanda’s behavior lacked empathy, and bordered on the bizarre. While even the family & friends allow that Amanda is unique, which is a good thing, suggesting her behavior indicated guilt is extreme. Here the film is hard to follow for anyone not already familiar with the details.

There are two scenes depicting Amanda (Hayden) in the police station on the first day. The first is the actual visit, the second comes from Filomena’s memory. In the actual (movie) visit, Amanda sitting on Raffaele’s lap and kissing him (as claimed by a number of real witnesses) is innocuous. She is stressed, and while the behavior is inappropriate, it does not come across as callous. However, when recounted by Filomena at the trial, Amanda is depicted as giggling and acting carefree. Will viewers remember the first scene, or believe the one from Filomena’s memory? This is followed by the most egregious misrepresentation of the film, Amanda’s remark on Meredith’s suffering, which I will address later.

The most notorious accusation, that Amanda did cartwheels in the police station, is factually inaccurate, but contextually correct. Amanda, relaxed and bored, having spent over 40 hours at the Questura from Nov.2nd through the fateful evening of Nov 5th, was studying while Raffaele was being interrogated. Believing she was there to help police (having refused to fly home despite the pleas of her mom), Amanda did some yoga exercises to stretch. A young policeman remarks on her limberness, and she does some cartwheels. The movie correctly shows the cartwheels were done out of boredom – totally natural and not in any way inappropriate. This is not the depiction of a guilty person.

However, the expressions Dornhelm gratuitously puts on Amanda’s (Hayden’s) face (that no one could have observed) may make viewers seriously question the real Amanda’s innocence. One is while Meredith is making a mojito – a scary and ambiguous glare that quickly turns into a smile. Was Dornhelm in the bar? This same ominous look comes on her face in a very touching scene. A shocked Amanda (Hayden) is told by Edda she must remain in prison for over a year while police investigate whether to try her or not. One moment she is sobbing, but then the scary look comes on Amanda’s face when she hugs her mother. Dornhelm seems to be purposely telling the audience Amanda is faking emotions, and has something to hide. This is reinforced when Amanda, alone in her cell, watches on TV as Rudy is indicted. The expression Dornhelm puts on Hayden’s face is the same, like she is deeply worried about a dark secret. This is all pure fiction – from the mind of Dornhelm. Will it influence viewers to think the real Amanda is guilty?

Now we come to more damaging fictions. Amanda and Raffaele are seen accidentally stumbling on Meredith’s memorial. That they did not attend is established fact. Worse, they then run away, laughing and giggling. This is an intolerable liberty taken by Dornhelm that borders on slander. How will viewers know this is total fiction?

Much more serious is a scene (based on fact) of Amanda (Hayden) taken to the cottage by police, where she becomes hysterical. In the real version the roommates, Filomena and Laura (not depicted in film – budget reasons?), were also there. However, Dornhelm has Hayden get hysterical when Mignini (who wasn’t there) mentions missing kitchen knives. This is pure fiction! The controversial kitchen knife was arbitrarily picked out of a draw in Raffaele’s apartment a week later – it had no part of the Nov.3rd cottage visit, whatsoever. Showing Amanda (Hayden) get hysterical over the mention of a kitchen knife, rather than just the stress of returning to the cottage is a damning lie. On one hand Amanda is accused of lacking empathy. In one of numerous instances (she also started sobbing in Paola Grande’s car taking her to the Questura right after the body was discovered – which is never depicted in film) when Amanda does show her real, deeply felt horror at her friends murder, Dornhelm turns it into a false accusation: Fear over discovery of the knife: A complete and total lie! This is outright slander, and loses the film any claim to being balanced and fair.

This brings us to a far more misleading and damning lie: Amanda’s alleged remark at the police station when one of Meredith’s friends (not Filomena) says she hopes Meredith didn’t suffer. According to witnesses, Amanda said “What do you f---ing think, she bled to death.” In the movie, Filomena recalls her saying (in a memory flashback): “What do you think – her throat was cut”! The goes on to show how Mignini charges that Amanda could not have known that detail on the first day, proving she participated in the crime. This is what viewers are left with. What are the uninformed ones going to think?

Informed ones know that the details of Meredith’s grisly death were known, and discussed. Paola Grande, who is in the film as the friend who arrives with Filomena at the cottage when the body was found, testified she told Amanda on the way to the Questura. The issue of this remark was never used in the trial because it meant nothing. However, Dornhelm allows viewers to believe Amanda had knowledge of the crime she couldn’t have unless she did it. A damning lie making her appear guilty. This removes any possibility that the film is fact-driven or fair. Dornhelm is purposely attempting to make Amanda look guilty.

There are many, many more inaccuracies and falsehoods. However, I believe the above proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Dornhelm meant to mislead viewers about the one thing that abounds in the Amanda Knox case – REASONABLE DOUBT !

Tuesday, February 22, 2011

Steve Moore's Response to the Lifetime movie "Amanda Knox: Murder on Trial in Italy"

I am used to seeing cases I’ve worked on portrayed inaccurately in the press, but “Amanda Knox: Murder on Trial in Italy” is absolutely the most inaccurate film I’ve ever seen. If it’s a “based on a true story,” I’m perplexed as to which story that is. Time after time, I groaned that half of a fact was being provided and that the most important part of the fact remained hidden. A word for this tactic is "Propaganda." The film makes as much sense as its title.

There is a truism in law enforcement: “Manipulated evidence is like a bikini; what it shows seems to be important, but what it hides is crucial.” An example in this movie is a line from the Italian investigator that suggests that a break-in is staged because glass from a window broken to gain entry “is on top of the clothes,” which were pulled out of the drawer after the glass was broken. Fair enough. Except that at the actual crime scene, almost all the glass was found UNDER the clothes. The glass on top of the clothing was simply glass from the top of desks and chests which was dislodged during the ransacking of the room. Not saying that more glass was found under the clothes than on top can only be intentional manipulation.

Half the truth plus half the truth equals no truth at all.

While I realize that Lifetime and Mr. Dornhelm have to make money to survive, it is astounding to me that they would be willing to do so at the cost of the life of an innocent girl and an innocent boy. It is possible that Dornhelm himself was manipulated by Mignini, the chief investigator. If this is true, it shows only that he is tragically and dangerously naive, and not simply avaricious. This is possible; he’s a filmmaker, not a forensic expert.

Other gross inaccuracies:
1. “Luminol” testing was conducted the day the murder was discovered, and gave valuable evidence. In fact, Luminol testing was not done for almost three weeks, and gave no evidence of culpability of either Amanda or Raffaele.
2. A statement made by the “investigator” at the crime scene was actually laughable: When told that some bloody footprints were found both visible and latent, he mutters; “So the crime scene was cleaned.” If the crime scene was cleaned, no footprints would have been found. It’s akin to saying “I’ve found a dead mouse in an eagle’s nest. It must have learned to fly, gotten into the nest and committed suicide.”
3. Gross, large amounts of blood were shown to be visible to Amanda at the cottage that morning. In reality, there were two or three individual drops in various places, not running splashes.

I could go on and on, but I ran out of paper and energy after the first few scenes. This movie was simply propaganda for the prosecutor, witting or unwitting. I’m reminded of the joke of the scientists that did an experiment on a frog. They trained him to jump on command. They would yell “Jump!” and he would leap. Then, they cut off his legs. They yelled “Jump!” and he just sat there. They came to the conclusion that when you cut off a frog’s legs, he goes deaf. That’s the kind of logic that has Amanda and Raffaele in prison. And this is the kind of logic Dornhelm used and defended.

If the movie was a sad commentary on the commercialism of media, the documentary following the movie was a tragedy. The producers of the documentary had enough information to know that Amanda and Raffaele were innocent. I know; I was in the documentary, and I gave them the information. Whoever edited the film, edited out exculpatory evidence. Period. I personally gave them photos and physical evidence which answered every question. Every single question left unanswered in the viewers’ mind in that documentary was previously answered for the producers. I am not alleging necessarily that the people who made most of the documentary made the “final edit” decisions, but somebody made them. Everybody I spoke with having anything to do with that documentary was convinced of Amanda’s innocence. Yet, the finished documentary left the question unanswered and in doubt.

The tactics used in the documentary were unconscionable. For instance, a statement was made by Barbie Nadeau, a food critic-turned crime-writer for this trial: "No fingerprints were found of Amanda, but several unidentified fingerprints were said by the prosecutors to be hers." This incredibly prejudicial statement was left unchallenged. If they were unidentified, they cannot in any court in the world be presumed to be anybody's! But not only was this incredibly malicious statement aired, it was aired without comment or rebuttal! It was if she said, "The witness didn't see the murderer. But she believes it was the defendant."

Unidentified fingerprints, by the way, or not the same as UNIDENTIFIABLE fingerprints. Unidentifiable fingerprints are smudged or unreadable and cannot be linked to anybody. Unidentified fingerprints are fingerprints where an accurate lift has been made. If they are not demonstrably linked to Amanda, it is because they were not a match for her. Period.

I cannot tell you why they chose not to air information that would so obviously have cleared Amanda and Raffaele, except to point out that “Lifetime,” who made a movie which did not show Amanda and Raffaele’s innocence, would not likely be well-served by a documentary following, which did.

Showing a movie which is simply a shill for the prosecution during Amanda’s appeal was conscienceless and a sad commentary on the commercialism of media and the avarice of individuals. But I’m sure Mr. Dornhelm can still live with himself. Why else do you think they serve alcohol at film premiers?

About the Author: Steve Moore is a retired FBI Agent who has 25 years of investigative experience. His experience includes the investigation and prosecution of violent crime, from murder to mass-murder and terrorism. Steve has researched the Meredith Kercher murder case extensively. I was very pleased when Steve accepted my request to write about his knowledge of this case for Injustice in Perugia. Steve has agreed to join our effort and will continue to work with us to set the record straight about this case. I would like to personally thank Steve for providing this invaluable information. Steve's expert opinion is one that comes from years of experience and one that must be respected when it comes to crimes of this nature. 

Steve's expert opinion can also be read in my new book, Injustice in Perugia
Available now at

Thursday, February 10, 2011

A True Tale of an Italian Witch Hunt

A True Tale of an Italian Witch Hunt
by S. Michael Scadron

An abridged version of this piece has been published in the CSMonitor.

Dating back to seventeenth century Salem, fast forwarding to the McCarthy era, and continuing with a spate of overzealous child abuse prosecutions during the 1980's and 90's, America’s courtrooms periodically harken back to the middle ages. The United States is not the only country in the western world looking to ferret out and punish its witches. Unfolding in Perugia, Italy over the past few years is the demonizing of an American foreign-exchange student convicted of murdering her British housemate in a drug fueled orgy. The sex game scenario is one dreamed up by the prosecutor, embellished in the media, but unsupported by the evidence before the court.

Before November, 2007, Amanda Knox was a typical college student. According to family and friends, back home in Seattle Amanda played soccer, partied hard, dated boys, attended class, and impressed her teachers with diligence and creativity. She practiced yoga, enjoyed hiking and rock climbing, loved music and studied guitar. She fed the homeless and nursed sick friends. On the honor roll at the University of Washington, she majored in foreign language studies. From a family of modest means, Amanda worked several jobs to earn her way to Italy as a foreign-exchange student. On a November day that year, at age 20, her world changed, her life turned inside out. From a free-spirited college kid to a prison cell, 6000 miles from home.

Giuliano Mignini reigned as the public minister and chief prosecutor of Perugia when one of Amanda’s housemates, a British girl named Meredith Kercher, was  found murdered in the cottage she shared with Amanda and two Italian girls. Mignini was under indictment himself at the time for abuse of power in an unrelated case. Mignini subscribed to a modus operandi in which he prosecuted those who disputed his theories in the press for such crimes as interfering with an investigation. In a sensational serial killer case known as the Monster of Florence, the investigation of which spanned several decades, Mignini had gone a bit too far by intimidating and illegally wiretapping journalists and various public servants. He would later be convicted of the charges against him. In the meantime, his investigation in that case, focusing on bizarre theories of satanic rituals, had hit a dead end.

In their book, The Monster of Florence, Douglas Preston, an American writer, and Mario Spezi, an Italian journalist, tell how Mignini was drawn to the theories of a crackpot named Gabriella Carlizzi, who ran a conspiracy theory website. Carlizzi believed that a satanic cult known as the School of the Red Rose was behind the Monster of Florence killings and 9/11. After Meredith’s murder, Carlizzi announced on her blog that “[t]he human sacrifice of the student [Meredith Kercher] bears a close connection with the ... Monster of Florence....”  She’d later claim that the crime possessed “the characteristics of a ritual culminating in human sacrifice.” It seems the public minister of Perugia was listening.

Undoubtedly, Mignini’s reputation had suffered as the result of his indictment and he needed a break to help restore it. Amanda, lucky girl, would become his prize demon, and her Italian boyfriend, Raffaele Sollecito, collateral damage.

Amanda and Raffaele have always maintained that they spent the night of the murder at his place, smoking dope and watching a movie. In the days following the murder, Amanda was subjected to more than 40 hours of questioning by police. For some reason, she aroused their suspicion, possibly because of her romance with an Italian boy. In terms of life style and morality Perugia is a conservative city. In the days following the murder, Amanda and Raffaele, who’d been dating for one week, were seen and photographed together, caressing and kissing, in the vicinity of the crime scene. The chief police inspector would later claim that he didn’t need evidence to conclude that Amanda was guilty; he could judge by her behavior. At one point, such behavior included Amanda saying that she “could kill for a pizza.” As the Italian press would put it, if she could kill for a pizza, what else would Amanda kill for?

Understandably, the police were under immense pressure to solve the case. On November 5, four days after the murder, Amanda and Raffaele were called to the police station, put in separate rooms, and subjected to an interrogation that lasted all night. Mignini supervised the questioning. The police provided no interpreter even though Amanda had been in Italy for less than two months. When she asked whether she should have a lawyer present she was told that a lawyer would only complicate matters. She would later testify that at some point the police turned on her. “It was like a crescendo,” she recalled. The Police called her a stupid liar and slapped her on the back of the head in order to help her better remember her role in the murder. She denied being involved in the crime, or that she was protecting anyone.

The police then asked her to imagine what had happened. Exhausted and spent, she stated that she had a dream-like vision in which she heard the screams of the victim. She named Patrick Lamumba, her boss at a bar where she’d worked, as the actual killer. The police had come to suspect Patrick because of an email Amanda sent him the evening of the murder. Patrick told Amanda he didn’t need her to work that night. “See you later,” she emailed back, “have a good evening.” The police took “see you later” to indicate something sinister was to occur. No less than 12 officers took turns in browbeating Amanda until she made statements they could use against her. She later retracted her statements but the police claimed they had her “confession.” They announced to the press with great fanfare that they had solved the case.

The Italian media went into a frenzy, labeling Amanda a she devil and sex predator. Mignini would refer to her in court as Luciferina, the mythical woman with the face of an angel and the soul of a devil. In short order, Amanda became the Monster of Perugia. She, Raffaele and Patrick were arrested and held for murder. Mignini’s theory, leaked to the press, was that all three killed Meredith because she refused to participate in a sex game, a premeditated sacrificial rite. Only later, when the crime scene was analyzed, did the arrests and press announcements seem too hasty. The DNA analysis did not point to Amanda or the two men arrested but to a homeless drifter from the Ivory Coast named Rudy Guede who had a history of break-ins and harassment of women. Rudy had fled to Germany, but was soon caught and extradited back to Italy.

It turned out that evidence of Rudy was everywhere in Meredith’s room: bloody footprints, DNA fingerprints, palm prints, bodily fluids, hair, and even fecal matter. By the same token, there was an absence of evidence of anyone else: no blood, no hairs, no fingerprints, no saliva, no DNA. Rudy’s initial story was that he’d had consensual sex with Meredith, after which he went to the bathroom with his i-pod and earplugs. He heard a scream and ran out to find that an intruder, an Italian man, had broken in and slashed Meredith’s throat. The intruder fled, shouting at Rudy that he, a black man, would be blamed. Although Rudy’s story would change, neither Amanda nor Raffaele were present in his initial version. 

Amanda and her family breathed a sigh of relief. Surely, they thought, she’d at last be exonerated and released, her brief nightmare over. But it was not to be. Mignini and the police had announced to the world the case was solved. They could not afford to lose face. Mignini agreed to the release of Patrick who had an air-tight alibi, and simply substituted Rudy for him, notwithstanding that neither Amanda nor Raffaele had any connection to Rudy. He stuck to his theory, based on pure speculation and fantasy, that the two men – now Raffaele and Rudy, rather than Patrick –  held Meredith down while Amanda stabbed her in the throat. All because Meredith refused to be a part of their drug fueled sex orgy. Never mind that Amanda had no trace of violence in her past, had never been arrested, and had never so much as behaved aggressively toward anyone.

Steve Moore, a retired FBI agent with 25 years of investigative experience, including investigation and prosecution of violent crime, has thoroughly studied the Kercher case. Based on his review of the evidence, Moore concludes that there is an absence of evidence that would have to be there if Amanda and Raffaele were involved in the crime. In an article entitled The Mountain of Missing Evidence, Moore makes the following observations:

1. Meredith’s room would have been filled with the bloody footprints, hand prints and smears of three people, not one, if the prosecutor’s theory is true. Yet, evidence of the presence of Amanda and Raffaele in the cottage at the time of the murder is missing. Moreover, it would have been impossible to remove all traces of evidence of Amanda and Raffaele while leaving all evidence of Rudy in tact. Thus, the prosecution’s theory that Meredith’s room was cleaned is not credible.

2. If the prosecutor’s theory were true, that Amanda stabbed Meredith in the throat while Rudy and Raffaele held her down, there would be blood-stained clothes, underwear and/or shoes of the attackers. Yet, no blood was ever found on any of their clothes or shoes. No discarded clothes were ever found.

3. There would have been bruises, cuts and other injuries to Amanda and Raffaele, yet neither had so much as a scratch. There was not a single hair of theirs in the room. Raffaele’s glasses were not broken or bent. So, they were not involved in any struggle with Meredith.

4. According to the scenario laid out by the prosecutor, there would be significant blood residue, yet not a speck of blood was ever found in Amanda’s room or Raffaele’s apartment, the most likely places they would have changed their clothes or cleaned up.
The prosecution conceded that Amanda had no history of violent or aggressive behavior. Amanda’s family describes her as a sweet young woman incapable of hurting a fly. At most, they say, she can be quirky, especially in tense situations, behavior that at times might be misconstrued as insensitive. In her book, Murder in Italy, Candice Dempsey explains Amanda’s behavior as follows:

Amanda Knox has always been eccentric, even by Seattle standards, a strong girl who believed in speaking her mind, in telling all. Her parents had worried about her studying abroad, saying that she sometimes lacked common sense....Everyone agreed that Amanda was book smart, not street-smart. She prided herself on being her own person, not like anyone else.
Whatever else might be said of Amanda, nothing in her past so much as hinted at meanness or vindictiveness, much less violent behavior. Yet, according to agent Moore, if the prosecutor’s theory of the crime is correct, such action on her part would be sociopathic in the extreme, behavior that could not possibly have been so well hidden from those who knew her before.

Mignini never came up with a credible motive. E-mails show that Amanda and Meredith got along well, aside from the typical roommate squabbles. They attended the Perugia chocolate festival together in October, and a video shows the girls performing karaoke with a third woman. They sound a little off key, a bit tipsy perhaps, but it’s clear they’re having a good time.

In the weeks and months ahead, Mignini searched and came up with a few pieces of evidence in an attempt to discredit the accused and bolster his theory. There was nothing, however, to implicate Amanda in Meredith’s murder, just speculation born of gossip and innuendo, usually false, about her alleged promiscuity or postings on those internet sites so popular with teenagers. Even her prison diaries were lifted and sold to the tabloid press, though they contained nothing that would suggest Amanda was culpable in any way. She became popularly known as Foxy Knoxy in the international media. Readers might be forgiven for not knowing that Foxy Knoxy was a nickname afforded Amanda by her soccer teammates when she was eight years old due to her crafty moves on the soccer field.

The Italian Supreme Court in Rome ruled portions of Amanda’s confession, obtained in violation of her rights, inadmissible. But the jury heard her full statements anyway because they were presented as part of a civil suit for slander brought against Amanda by Patrick. The slander suit was heard in conjunction with the murder trial.
Of the physical evidence presented at trial, only a large kitchen knife lifted from Raffaele’s kitchen, alleged to be the murder weapon, and a bra clasp belonging to Meredith are of note. The knife contained Amanda’s DNA on the handle and traces of Meredith’s DNA on the blade. The problem for the prosecution was that a coroner concluded that the knife was inconsistent with the victim’s wounds. The DNA on the blade was insufficient to be attributed to Meredith. Amanda’s DNA on the handle could easily be explained in that she used the knife for cooking.

The bra clasp allegedly contained DNA that could be in a class that included Raffaele’s DNA. It also contained the DNA of five other people. The biggest obstacle for prosecutors was that even though it had been plainly visible on the floor during the initial search, the clasp was not picked up until six weeks later when it was discovered in a swept up dust pile. For this reason, any DNA testing would be inherently unreliable, most likely the result of contamination. As with other evidence in the case, the defense team was not allowed to conduct its own independent testing.

After thoroughly examining evidence collection techniques in this case, Agent Moore concluded that at every step investigators’ actions were counter to established and recognized practices.

Chris Halkides, an Associate Professor of chemistry and biochemistry at the University of North Carolina - Wilmington, has evaluated the evidence in the Kircher-Knox-Sollecito case, presenting his findings on several aspects of the case in a series of blogs entitled View From Wilmington. Especially problematic, according to Halkides and several forensic scientists upon whose work he relies, is the failure of investigators to disclose the electronic data files of the DNA evidence that underlies the DNA test results. Disclosure of such files is particularly important in a case like this involving low level samples of DNA. Without the low level samples on the knife or the weak, mixed DNA on the bra clasp, the case, as a whole, is insubstantial.
Amanda spent a year in prison before being charged with murder and a second year while being tried. The court convened only two days a week and the judges urged the jury to immerse itself in press accounts of the case in their spare time. Despite the relentless vilification of Amanda in the press, she and her family were hopeful that the paucity of evidence would result in acquittal. Wrong again. When the jury announced its guilty verdict in December, 2009, Amanda was so distraught the prison guards had to hold and console her all through the night.

In the days following the verdict many in the United States expressed outrage. Senator Maria Cantwell, from Amanda’s home state of Washington, issued the following press release:
I am saddened by the verdict and I have serious questions about the Italian justice system and whether anti-Americanism tainted this trial. The prosecution did not present enough evidence for an impartial jury to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Ms. Knox was guilty. Italian jurors were not sequestered and were allowed to view highly negative news coverage about Ms. Knox. Other flaws in the Italian Justice system on display in this case included the harsh treatment of Ms. Knox following her arrest; negligent handling of evidence by investigators; and pending charges of misconduct against one of the prosecutors stemming from another murder trial.

The Senator stated that she was in contact with the U.S. Ambassador to Italy, Secretary of State Clinton, and the Embassy of Italy in Washington, D.C. It seems unlikely, however, that the State Department will intervene while the case is on appeal, in light of its policy of non- interference with the judicial process of a sovereign nation. Indeed, to do so might invite a backlash that would ultimately work to Amanda’s disadvantage.

The Italian judges and jurors did not buy into Mignini’s theory lock, stock, and barrel. But their reasoning, set forth in a voluminous report issued 90 days after the verdict, was equally speculative and bizarre. They reasoned that when Meredith refused Rudy’s sexual advances, Amanda and Raffaele came to the aid of this rapist who they did not know, rather than to the aid of Amanda’s friend and housemate. Recognizing Amanda’s non-violent history, the judges found no premeditation or malice. Rather, in a sex game fueled by drugs, events spiraled out of control. Amanda got 26 years and Raffaele 25. Rudy, in a separate fast track trial, had already been convicted and sentenced to 30 years (reduced to 16, on appeal).

Amanda is presently spending her third year behind bars, her ultimate fate uncertain as the case slowly grinds its way up the appellate ladder. Independent judges will be involved in her appeal, which will be heard this coming November. Amanda and her family hope that the appeal process will have more integrity than what has gone before. If the case is decided on the facts, Amanda will go free because there is no evidence to implicate her in the crime upon which the court may justifiably rely. If the case is decided on some other account, such as protecting the political ambitions of local authorities, she may remain in an Italian prison for some time.

Mignini is not content to have Amanda locked up in an Italian prison for a mere 26 years. On appeal, he is seeking to extend her sentence to a life term, which in Italy computes to 30 years. Moreover, he has brought criminal slander charges against her for telling her version of the all night police investigation when police allegedly hit her on the back of the head. The police have denied striking Amanda. Her slander trial is scheduled to be heard in the fall, around the time of her appeal. If convicted on the slander charges, Amanda may face up to six additional years of incarceration.

On top of everything, Mignini has brought criminal slander charges against Amanda’s parents for repeating Amanda’s version of the interrogation in a media interview. One can be excused for asking whether the public minister wants to bankrupt Amanda’s family to such an extent that they are forced to abandon the fight. Alternatively, might these extra charges be an attempt to deprive Amanda of her parents’ visits for at least a portion of her sentence?

Amanda’s defense team will be presenting new evidence of its own on appeal that might free not only Amanda and Raffaele, but Rudy as well. A jailed Italian mobster has claimed that his brother, whose whereabouts is presently unknown, killed Meredith. In March of this year, Lucianno Aviello told Amanda’s attorneys during videotaped interviews that his brother came home one night wearing a bloodstained jacket and carrying a flick knife, saying that he had killed a girl during a botched robbery. He asked Aviello to hide the blood stained knife and a set of keys. Indeed, police never had recovered Meredith’s keys.

According to Aviello, his brother claimed that he and an Albanian man broke into the house and found Meredith and Rudy there. When Meredith saw them, she screamed like mad and defended herself by scratching and hitting out at him. In response, Aviello’s brother slashed her throat. Aviello says that he can prove it because the evidence – knife and keys -- are buried at his home. In fact, there had been evidence of a break-in at the crime scene, but police theorized that the break-in was staged, allowing them to adhere to the sex game scenario as an inside job.

Aviello had sent several letters to the court during the trial, but Mignini and the judges ignored them. Mignini told the British and Italian media that Aviello’s claims were irrelevant since the court had deemed him not credible and didn’t interview him. This assertion is curious in light of the fact that Italian prosecutors have used Aviello’s testimony in the past in several mob trials.
If the appeals court allows Aviello to testify, it will be interesting to see if the knife and keys contain Meredith’s blood or DNA on them. If so, Amanda, Raffaele, and possibly Rudy, will all be exonerated. Whether anything comes of Aviello’s story or not, several questions persist about the verdict and, in general, about how the case has been handled.

First, as soon as Amanda, Raffaele, and Patrick were arrested on the morning of November 6, 2007, the police and prosecutors came up with a narrative about the crime that held that the killing of the British student resulted from a drug fueled orgy which was part of a premeditated sacrificial rite in which all three participants took part. There appears no evidence to support such a narrative as opposed to, for example, a botched robbery. Is the police narrative, which persisted through the trial and verdict, fact or fantasy?

Second, when the forensic evidence came in establishing that Rudy, who had a history of break-ins, was the only person who could be linked to the crime scene, why were the charges against Amanda and Raffiaele not dropped for lack of evidence? Could it be that the original narrative had so taken hold in the media that the police needed to save face? Moreover, was it necessary to hold to the original narrative to salvage Mignini’s career?

Third, the police and prosecutors went about collecting evidence based on flawed methodology. Could it be that instead of amending their theory to fit the facts, they made up facts to fit their theory?

Fourth, did police and prosecutors fuel the media frenzy directed at Amanda? How was the media able to develop a persona of the Seattle native so at odds with the persona known by her family and friends? Did the negative press ultimately seal Amanda’s doom?

Finally, the jury’s report rejected the prosecutor’s theory of the crime to the extent that the jury found no malice. Yet the jury’s reasoning seems to defy common sense because it concludes that despite no motive, Amanda teamed up with a miscreant she did not know in order to attack her friend and housemate. Did anti-Americanism play a role in the trial and verdict as Senator Cantwell has suggested? If not anti-Americanism per se, was Amanda’s status as an outsider a factor in her guilty verdict?

These are a few of the perplexing questions that will likely be considered by the Court of Appeals in November. Meanwhile, Amanda spends her time in prison keeping in touch with family and friends by mail. She is limited to visits two days a week and speaks on the phone to her family in Seattle for ten minutes every Saturday. She is taking correspondence courses toward her college degree, and, as necessary, she assists with her appeal, primarily by translating court documents. As a language student, she takes pride in helping semi-literate Italian girls write letters home.

Holidays are particularly hard on Amanda. In a letter to a family friend, she recalled that when she was younger, on Mother’s Day, she’d help her mom cut big branches of lilacs from the yard and bring them to her Oma’s [grandmother’s] to put in a vase. “I can still remember their fragrance.”

What comes across in Amanda’s letters is that she still finds joy in whatever small pleasures she can, as on those occasions when music is brought into the prison.

 The most awesome of news! Somehow, just somehow, Don Saulo brought a piano into the prison!!! Yesterday we were playing and talking music, since I help him out by playing the guitar (he helps me by putting a guitar into my hands), when I recognized a Hebrew song that one of the nuns had put on for us to listen to. It lead to a great conversation about religious music and also popular culture. I recalled for him when I performed in ‘Fiddler on the Roof’ and I had fun explaining for him the song ‘Matchmaker’, one of my favorites from that play.

Kind of random, but a fun moment for me here.

Amanda wants her supporters to know that she does not blame Italy or the Italian government for her predicament. “I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: I like Italy. Those who have accused me and condemned me are wrong and my conviction is unacceptable, but I would be living without hope if I couldn’t believe that justice could happen here in Italy. That is my hope.”

Only time will tell.