New CNN documentary casts doubt on Amanda Knox conviction.

[pnwmom]

‘Murder Abroad: The Amanda Knox Story’ – CNN’s Drew Griffin Reports
One-hour documentary premieres Sunday, May 8, 8:00pm ET & PT
replays on Saturday, May 14 at 8:00p.m. ET and PT

Amanda Knox was the University of Washington student convicted of murdering her roommate in Perugia, Italy, along with her Italian boyfriend and a third party barely known to either of them. The third party -- who had a history of burglary, and was known to carry a knife -- left an abundance of DNA, fingerprints, shoeprints, etc. at the site of the murder; Amanda, none at all. The case against Amanda was prosecuted by a man who was himself under indictment for prosecutorial misconduct -- and used the media to whip up a witch-hunt frenzy against her and her boyfriend in the year before the trial began. Amanda and her boyfriend have been sentenced to 26 and 25 years in prison. The third party -- the one with the history of breaking and entering, burglary, and knife-carrying -- the one whose DNA and handprints were all over the crime scene -- has had his sentence reduced to 15 years.

We have the Duke lacrosse case to demonstrate what a prosecutor on a vendetta can do; but the Duke students were lucky that the media helped to uncover the facts and they were eventually proclaimed innocent. In Italy, by contrast, the media has been hamstrung by libel laws that allow the prosecutor to press criminal charges against members of the media and even defendants' attorneys who criticize the conduct of the prosecutor or the police. The prosecutor has even gone so far as to press criminal charges against Amanda's parents for speaking out on her behalf; and against a small newspaper in West Seattle that has been reporting the case -- which means the newspaper will not be sending any reporter to Italy.

In that context, I was happy to hear that CNN has gone ahead with this documentary.

http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2011/04/28/‘murder-abroad-the-amanda-knox-story’-–-cnn’s-drew-griffin-reports/

(I DON'T KNOW WHY I COULDN'T GET THE LINK TO WORK PROPERLY, BUT IF YOU SCROLL DOWN ABOUT HALFWAY, YOU CAN SEE THE STORY.)

‘Murder Abroad: The Amanda Knox Story’ – CNN’s Drew Griffin Reports
One-hour documentary premieres Sunday, May 8, 8:00pm ET & PT
replays on Saturday, May 14 at 8:00p.m. ET and PT

With the 2009 conviction of American exchange student Amanda Knox for the murder of British exchange student Meredith Kercher now on appeal, a new CNN documentary investigates the evidence that linked Knox to the murder during her first trial, and how the case was prosecuted. CNN investigative correspondent Drew Griffin reveals new details that cast doubts upon controversial blood, knife, DNA, and other evidence presented in Knox’s original trial.

Griffin also has a rare television interview with the chief prosecutor in the case, Giuliano Mignini, and reveals a pattern of prosecutorial behavior that raises questions about the original conviction.

Griffin traveled to Perugia, Italy, where the sexual assault and stabbing death occurred, and Seattle, WA, where Knox grew up and her parents still live, to report the truth behind the international headlines. Griffin begins with the notorious murder on Nov. 1, 2007. He debriefs viewers on Knox’s now-disputed confession – obtained after days of unrelenting questioning, and according to Knox, even physical abuse by police interrogators. Questions have also been raised about the security of the crime scene and the evidence there. Griffin takes fresh, critical looks at the separate crime theories presented by the prosecution, the defense and the judge.

A digital timeline of the events related to the Knox case, articles that examine the evidence presented in the original trial, an explanation of the complex Italian legal procedures that have circumscribed this case, and video excerpts from the documentary, will be available for viewing via www.cnn.com, beginning the week of May 1.

SNIP

[abelenkpe]

1. Never thought she was guilty

but what do I know?

[pnwmom]

4. You know more than the people who supported her conviction. n/t

[proud2BlibKansan]

18. Neither did I

[pnwmom]

31. She has many friends and family here who were sick at the outcome

of that show trial. But, obviously, you don't have to have known Amanda to realize that the case against her is a pile of garbage.

[Pithlet]

24. Me neither n/t

[Bake]

2. Mrs. Bake and I have argued over this every time the story comes up.

I don't think she did it. I think she's flaky, and there are parts to her story I can't explain and don't understand (like the cartwheel at the police station episode), but that doesn't mean she's guilty. Mrs. B, on the other hand, is sure she did it.

Bake

[pnwmom]

3. Maybe you and Mrs. B should watch this together.

But here's my question for your wife:

The room was barely larger than the size of a queen size bed. According to the prosecutor, Amanda was the attacker (out of three, crowded into this tiny room) who was wielding the murder weapon. The room was covered with DNA and bloody fingerprints, handprints, and shoeprints -- and NONE of it matched Amanda. If she carried out the very bloody, violent murder, how could she not leave a trace of her presence in the room? How could not a trace of Meredith's blood or DNA been found on her? It can't be that she and her boyfriend scrubbed all their own DNA and fingerprints from the room, leaving only Guede's. That would be physically impossible. DNA is INVISIBLE.

The only tiny bit of evidence linked to Amanda was a knife found in the kitchen drawer not at the murder scene, but at her boyfriend's apartment. The size didn't match the size of the knife used in the murder -- that knife was clearly outlined in blood on the bedsheets. Amanda's DNA was found on the handle -- big surprise, since she used it to cook. There was NO BLOOD from Meredith on that knife -- only a trace amount of non-blood DNA that may or may not have been Meredith's. From the amount, it was most likely caused by contamination, by handling procedures either before it came to the lab or while it was there.

With no link to Amanda at all in the murder room, and no witnesses, and no motive, how can that not be enough reasonable doubt to fly a 747 through?

I agree, she's flaky. She didn't behave "appropriately," in the opinion of the police and prosecutor, and that's why I've called this a witch hunt. She was convicted because they didn't like her and because the prosecutor found her useful for building up his reputation -- not because they had real evidence of guilt.

[Bake]

6. The absence of DNA evidence is what I find most compelling

And I have argued that point repeatedly.

DNA doesn't lie.

Bake

[LisaL]

8. Well they actually do have DNA evidence, such as DNA of Knox

mixed with victim's blood. Of course since Knox lived there I am not sure how significant that is.

[Bake]

11. Yes, from the bathroom (IIRC), but not from the actual crime scene

The prosecutor argued she had time to clean the room.

You could not selectively clean the room of ONLY your DNA.

Bake

[LisaL]

12. They also have DNA on the bra clasp of the victim from Knox's boyfriend.

Of course the clasp was not collected for quite sometime, so again I am not sure what that means.
But they do have DNA evidence, so it wouldn't be correct to say they did not.

[Bake]

13. You mean the bra clasp that laid around the house for six months or so?

The one that was handled by every crime scene tech there? With no gloves?

No way that proves ANYTHING. It would never be admitted into evidence here.

Bake

[LisaL]

14. I've already said none of that DNA evidence is very convincing.

But they do have it and it was used at trial to convict Amanda Knox and her boyfriend.

[pnwmom]

23. But THAT was supposed to be their key evidence.

What else do they have?

A "confession" that was tossed out of court because they obtained it after 5 days (and more than 24 hours straight) of interrogation without an interpreter or lawyer, and which she retracted after she'd had a few hours sleep -- interrogations which were not recorded although the building was set up with audio/video equipment in all the rooms -- interrogations which were not even transcribed on paper.

A "murder weapon" retrieved from a drawer in the boyfriend's kitchen -- which had NO blood on it (only a miniscule amount of DNA that might have been Kercher's, but no blood) and didn't match the size of the weapon clearly imprinted in blood on the bedsheet in the murdered girl's room.

A star witness who claimed he knew he had seen them outside the apartment that night because he had also seen students wearing costumes going to Halloween celebrations that night -- except the murder occurred the night AFTER Halloween. This star witness later was convicted of drug dealing and admitted in court to taking heroin during the same period he was giving testimony about -- but he claimed it didn't affect his memory.

So why did they go after Amanda and her boyfriend? Because before any of the DNA or fingerprint evidence came in, they had already announced that they had the murderers, and that they were Amanda, the boyfriend, and the bar -owner Amanda worked for. (They had coerced her into naming him, too, after finding his phone number on her cell phone -- along with a message that said "see you later!") Then, when he had an alibi and Guede turned out to belong to the DNA and fingerprints, they just swapped Guede in for the bar-owner, but kept their same original story -- Amanda and her boyfriend of three weeks had gotten together with Guede (who they'd met once at a party) to murder Kercher when she wouldn't have sex with them.

[Bake]

33. Exactly!

Sounds like it was Nancy "Flaming Nostrils of Justice" Grace that prosecuted this piece of crap case.

Bake

[pnwmom]

25. Have you seen the video taken at the crime scene, where

they pass it around from one person to another and then toss it on the ground again, so they can take a photo of it where they supposedly found it? Their idea of forensics is a sick joke.

[pnwmom]

22. It IS correct to say they found no DNA or any other evidence from Amanda

in the tiny room where the murder occurred. How is that possible, since they said Amanda actually wielded the knife?

They also found no evidence of the boyfriend in all the evidence they collected the day after the murder. But when all THAT evidence finally came back from the lab 6 weeks later -- and ALL was linked to Guede, a known burglar -- they were stuck, because they'd already announced to the public that the case was solved and the murderers, Knox and her boyfriend, were in jail.

So what did they do? They went back to the crime scene, looking for more evidence -- after 6 weeks of investigators shuffling around from room to room, moving dust from one place to another. Under a mat, in a pile of rubbish they found the clasp -- and when it was analyzed it had a tiny bit of DNA that may have been the boyfriend's. But after 6 weeks of being kicked from one place in the room to another (there is photographic evidence that it had changed locations over the course of time) -- it's not possible to know where the DNA came from or even (because it was such a tiny fragment) whether it was his.

[pnwmom]

21. Do you know where they found that? In the toilet that they both used.

It means nothing.

[pnwmom]

32. Right. And it's not like you can selectively scrub two people's DNA

and miraculously leave only the DNA belonging to a third participant.

[LisaL]

5. The role of media in Duke lacrosse case?

I am actually very surprised none of the students sued the media for libel. Seem like the students should have had plenty of ground for a lawsuit.

[pnwmom]

20. Some of the media did a great job -- some very poor. n/t

[glen123098]

7. CNN has an outstanding research team.

But strangely it seems they are only outstanding when it comes to dead white women.


Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq?

Corporate Fraud?

Election Fraud?

Criminal Negligence after a hurricane?



Where was CNN? Oh yeah, they were investigating the recent missing white woman.

[devilgrrl]

10. +1,000,000,000

eom

[yardwork]

9. OT correction re: Duke lacrosse case. The media didn't uncover facts pointing to innocence.

That was the work of defense attorneys, who spent literally hundreds of hours combing through the forensic data and figured out that the evidence actually cleared their clients. These were private lawyers hired by the relatively affluent parents of the accused.

As for Amanda Knox, I never thought that there was compelling evidence of her guilt.

[pnwmom]

26. Members of the media REPORTED the documents that the attorneys

were filing in the Duke case, with analysis of the documents and often online links to the whole document. This was instrumental in bringing public pressure to bear on the state of North Carolina, eventually leading to the Attorney General taking over the case.

By contrast, members of the media in Italy are subject to criminal penalty -- including jail time -- if they criticize the police or prosecutor's handling of the case. Even some of Amanda's attorneys have been charged with criminal violations of Italian libel laws.

[yardwork]

36. I don't think that we're really disagreeing here, but I am sure that without the work of the defense

nobody would have ever known that all the raw data in the analyses ordered by the prosecution actually pointed to innocence. The media certainly did not do any of the work. They reported the issue after the defense attorneys announced what they had found. There was very little investigative journalism done - a lot of noise, but very little investigation on the part of the media.

That said, I don't mean to highjack your thread and I agree that the Amanda Knox case looks very weak. I don't know anything about Italy's laws governing the media, but the world certainly needs more freedom of the press, not less.

[WinkyDink]

15. I'm going with the verdict. I'm sick of Americans who like to view other nations as back-

water know-nothing swamps.

[pnwmom]

28. Why? If you had gone with the verdict in the Duke case you'd have been

sadly wrong. The Italians are just as capable of runaway prosecutions as we are.

My sister had spent a year in Perugia while she was in college, and I had nothing but positive impressions of the area -- until I came to know the details of this case. Amanda was prosecuted based on a mountain of weightless evidence -- it all came down to the fact that they disliked her. Just like so many DUers disliked the Duke students, and were sure they must be guilty.

[CBGLuthier]

34. There was no "verdict" in the Duke case

Wasn't even a trial was there.

[Liquorice]

16. The way the Italian legal system has treated Amanda Knox is unconscionable. I

have never had any doubt about her innocence. It's one of the worst cases of injustice I have ever seen.

[Chris_Texas]

17. I think she's guilty as sin myself.

[Liquorice]

19. It just so happens that the guy whose DNA was found all

over the murder scene was a stranger to Amanda and her boyfriend. I guess they just met the guy on the street earlier in the night and decided on the spur of the moment to do a ritualistic rape/murder on Amanda's roommate. Bullshit.

[LisaL]

27. She did met Guede prior to the murder-however very briefly.

[pnwmom]

30. Yes. And does it make any sense to you that this girl, with her new

boyfriend of 3 weeks, would suddenly be driven to murder her roommate -- because she wouldn't have sex with them and a guy they barely knew? Do you really think that smoking pot or hash would drive her to do that? Because that's what the prosecution says must have happened.

One thing to remember is that Italy supposedly has the same standard we have -- "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." Isn't the fact that there wasn't a trace of Amanda's ANYTHING at the bloody murder scene enough in itself to provide that doubt? When there were dozens of pieces of direct evidence (DNA, fingerprints, etc) linking a known burglar to the crime? And only that burglar?

[pnwmom]

29. Based on what? Your gut feeling?

Because there was virtually no evidence tying her to the crime -- no DNA or fingerprints or any other trace of Amanda in the tiny, bloody room where she is supposed to have knifed Kercher to death. How would even that be possible?

[laylah]

35. I watched this special

on the ID channel last week. I firmly believe the young woman was railroaded.