Amanda Knox Found Guilty Again: Why the Court Could Be (Sort of) Right
The latest verdict from an Italian Appeals court finding Amanda Knox and her then boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito guilty of murdering her roommate Meredith Kercher
may come as a stunning outrage to many Americans. But once you dig a
little deeper, maybe, just maybe, some of the reasoning becomes a little
less outlandish.
In the annals of high-profile injustices, the 26-year-old Knox is now
often cited alongside the most indefensible miscarriages of justices
this nation has addressed in recent years, such as the Memphis 3,
convicted on nothing more than inaccurate assumptions and a coerced
confession; the "Scottsboro Boys," where the Alabama Board of Pardons
and Parole finally, 82 years later, pardoned the last of nine black men
falsely convicted of raping two white women in a racist rush to
judgment; and Ryan Ferguson, who served ten years for murder, convicted
on the flimsiest of testimony that was ultimately and completely
recanted and discredited. Ferguson has even been in contact with Knox to
offer his support.
Knox, who was initially convicted by an Italian court and served 4 years
of a 26-year sentence, was released by an appeals court in Italy in
2011.That ruling overturning the verdict confirmed the strongly-held
beliefs, or at least suspicions, of many Americans that this pretty,
young American studying abroad was railroaded by a corrupt Italian
justice system.
The appeals court, in harsh and unambiguous language, questioned the
validity of the main forensic evidence based on the way it was handled
and collected.
In the wake of the legal victory and her release, Knox published a book
followed by a high-profile publicity tour where she portrayed herself
and her then-boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito as innocent victims guilty of
nothing more than failing to grasp the severity of the situation in
which they suddenly found themselves ensconced.
A pair of maybe too-affectionate young lovers, ultimately coerced and
deceived into making incriminating statements by ruthless Italian
investigators, cruelly questioning a sleepless, young tourist in a
foreign tongue. And it didn't help that the lead and seemingly
overzealous prosecutor also faced charges for abusing his office in
another case.
And so the story told on this side of the pond was clear: Amanda Knox was just in the wrong place at the wrong time.
But in reality, the question of where exactly she was that night and
what she and Sollecito were doing has never been completely answered.
Once Knox was safely beyond the reach of Italian law, that nation's
highest court reversed the appeals court ruling and called for a new
trial, which to those back home in the U.S. just seemed like more
vindictive and senseless suffering for these victims. And now the court
sentencing Knox to 28 years and six months -- two-and-a-half year more
than she had received after the first trial -- will just add fuel to the
public fire over this case
In Europe, on the other hand, there has long been far more sympathy for,
and anger on behalf of, the victim Meredith Kercher. Many there were
convinced that Knox and Sollecito were correctly found guilty of murder,
and that they escaped justice based on Amanda's newfound celebrity
status.
But there is another possible explanation and one that few on either
side, particularly here in the United States, seem willing to consider
-- that maybe, just maybe Amanda and Raffaele weren't involved in the
murder but were in the house the night Meredith was killed. That could
explain both their conflicting and seemingly irreconcilable statements
as well as why their DNA wasn't found in Meredith Kercher's room.
One thing that seems clear is that the man serving 16 years for the
murder, Rudy Guede, was present and involved in the murder. His DNA was
found strewn throughout Meredith's room, on the walls, in the bathroom,
and on the victim herself. His blood was also found mixed with her blood
inside her bag and his bloody hand print was on her pillow. His defense
would be laughable if the case wasn't so serious -- that he and
Meredith had been having consensual sex that night, he developed a
sudden and uncontrollable case of the runs, raced to the bathroom and
put on a headset to listen to a few songs, which prevented him from
hearing the horror suddenly transpiring in the room next to him.
Only after enjoying some deafening tunes while finding desperately
needed bowel relief does Guede claim he returned to the room to find a
dying Meredith lying in her bed -- her throat slit. In his most recent
account, Guede claims he overheard Knox and Meredith Kercher arguing,
heard a scream, emerged from the bathroom and was attacked by a male
figure he could not identify. His conviction was hardly controversial.
But prosecutors initially argued that Guede, Knox and Sollecito likely
engaged in some sort of drug-fueled sex game together in which Sollecito
held Kercher by the shoulders from behind while Knox touched her with
the point of a knife. They said Guede, an Ivory Coast national, tried to
sexually assault Meredith. When she resisted, they theorized, Knox
fatally stabbed her in the throat and she was killed. The problem with
that theory, apart from its seeming absurdity, has always been that
while Guede's DNA was ubiquitous, neither Knox's nor Sollecito's DNA was
anywhere to be found in that room. . A newer prosecution theory
suggests the murder came after the roommates fought with Guede involved.
Under either theory prosecutors relied on a number of controverted
pieces of physical evidence: They said there was a tiny piece of
Sollecito's DNA found six weeks later on Meredith's bra clasp,
Meredith's DNA found on a knife at Sollecito's home, what may or may not
have been a bloody footprint that may or may not have matched Sollecito
and what appeared to have been Knox's DNA mixed with Kercher's blood.
While the mixed DNA sample in particular seemed particularly
incriminating, Knox and Sollecito's defense teams at least placed into
serious doubt the findings on each of those crucial pieces of evidence.
Without that sort of hard evidence it's difficult to see how any murder
conviction can be upheld. The evidence that either of them were involved
in the murder itself still seems flimsy at best. But that doesn't
answer many questions that remain about the often conflicting accounts
offered by both Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito about their
whereabouts and actions that night. The pair now claim they were at
Raffaele's house the entire night Meredith was killed on Nov. 1, 2007.
Amanda Knox Found Guilty Again: Why the Court Could Be (Sort of) Right
When Meredith Kercher's bedroom door (which had been locked) was knocked
down at around 1 p.m. the next day, Knox and Sollecito say they were as
shocked as anyone to see the bloody crime scene.
But that contention is far less clear-cut. Rather than being guilty of
murder, maybe, just maybe the pair got themselves caught up in nothing
more than a big, dangerous lie that led Italian authorities to find
their accounts dubious and led them to wrongly suspect and accuse the
two of murder.
One can understand those suspicions since both Sollecito's and Knox's
accounts of where they were and what they did that night and morning
changed many times, and some of that was not supported by objective
evidence. In fact, Sollecito appears to have offered at least four
different versions:
1) He originally told the police he was with Knox at her home on the day
of the murder, and that he and Amanda went for a walk from her cottage
before heading to his apartment for dinner. They watched a movie, he
said, while making and eating dinner, spent the night on the computer
and slept until about 10:30 a.m.
2) The next day he provided a very similar account to a reporter for the
Sunday Mirror, but added that they went to a party before going back to
his apartment (which would be a crucial detail).
3) When Sollecito was questioned by police he offered a new account:
"Amanda and I went into town at around 6 p.m., but I don't remember what
we did. We stayed there until around 8:30 p.m. or 9 p.m. At 9 p.m. I
went home alone and Amanda said that she was going to Le Chic because
she wanted to meet some friends. We said goodbye. I went home, I rolled
myself a spliff and made some dinner, but I do not remember what I ate."
At about 11 p.m. he said his father called the house and Amanda had not
yet returned. According to his statement, he spent the next two hours on
the computer until Amanda arrived at 1 a.m. He also said, "In my
previous statement I told a load of rubbish because Amanda had convinced
me of her version of the facts and I didn't think about the
inconsistencies."
4) In a prison diary, he seemed uncertain about that night's events,
apparently stemming from having smoked marijuana at around 6 p.m.
"[F]rom this moment come my problems," he wrote, "because I have
confused memories."
He wrote that he presumed that he and Amanda had done some grocery
shopping before returning to his home around 8 p.m. to 8:30 p.m., where
they smoked more pot. He doesn't remember what time he ate, but was
certain he ate with Amanda. He remembered surfing the Internet, maybe
watching a film, and that his father called him. He thinks Amanda went
out to a pub where she often worked, but didn't recall for how long. On
the other hand, he remembered that she told him later that the pub was
closed.
5) At the end of the 2011 appeal Sollecito again stated that Knox was at
his apartment that night. While he repeatedly said he spoke to his
father around 11 p.m., there is no phone record of that call and there
was no indication of any activity on his home computer after 9:10 p.m.,
when a movie on the computer ended and it seems there was not even any
interaction with the laptop at that time. Furthermore, at 5:32 a.m.
experts testified that someone unsuccessfully attempted to play an MP3
file on his computer followed by two more failed additional attempts.
The individual switched to iTunes and played an MP3 file.
If true, both he and Amanda did not sleep until at least 10 as they both have claimed.
If Sollecito's memory of what happened that night seems muddled, Amanda
Knox's appears to have been no clearer. She initially told police that
she spent the whole night with Raffaele Sollecito at his apartment, and
repeated this in an email to family and friends a few days after the
murder. "After a little while of playing guitar me and raffael went to
his house to watch movies and after to eat dinner and generally spend
the evening and night indoors. we didn't go out. the next morning i woke
up around 1030."
Knox indicated that she couldn't remember much about what happened at
Sollecito's apartment that night because she had smoked marijuana. In
two statements to police that were eventually deemed inadmissible, she
pointed the finger of blame at bar owner Patrick Lumumba and placed
herself at the scene of the crime. She later admitted that allegation
against Lumumba was untrue, the result, she said, of undue pressure from
police.
In one of those statements she claimed: "Yes we were in the house. We
were drunk. ... Raffaele and I went into another room and then I heard
screams. ... Patrick and Meredith were in Meredith's bedroom while I
think I stayed in the kitchen. ... I can't remember how long they were
together in the bedroom but the only thing I can say is that at a
certain point I remember hearing Meredith's screams and I covered my
ears."
In the other statement she offered a somewhat consistent account
alleging that Lumumba and Meredith went together into Meredith's room
while, "I think I stayed in the kitchen. I can't remember how long they
were in the bedroom together, I can only say that at a certain point I
heard Meredith screaming and I was so frightened I put my fingers in my
ears. I don't remember anything after that, my head is really confused."
She said she had a lot to drink and fell asleep. In both statements she
also said she recalled waking up at Sollecito's home and heading back to
her house and finding the door open.
Putting aside the reliability (or lack thereof) of those statements,
something important happened shortly thereafter. Knox was told Sollecito
was not supporting her account of what happened. At that point, at 5:45
in the morning, after offering those different accounts through the
night, she offered to write out a new statement in English. Knox seemed
confused and uncertain about where she had been and what she had done.
It began with: "I have been told there is hard evidence saying that I
was at the place of the murder of my friend when it happened. This, I
want to confirm, is something that to me, if asked a few days ago, would
be impossible. I know that Raffaele has placed evidence against me,
saying that I was not with him on the night of Meredith's murder, but
let me tell you this. In my mind there are things I remember and things
that are confused.
She goes on: "What happened after I know does not match up with what
Raffaele was saying, but this is what I remember. I told Raffaele that I
didn't have to work and that I could remain at home for the evening.
After that I believe we relaxed in his room together, perhaps I checked
my email. Perhaps I read or studied or perhaps I made love to Raffaele.
In fact, I think I did make love with him. However, I admit that this
period of time is rather strange because I am not quite sure. I smoked
marijuana with him and I might even have fallen asleep. These things I
am not sure about and I know they are important to the case and to help
myself, but in reality, I don't think I did much."
That seems to bolster her account but then she also appears to be
preparing to incriminate Sollecito. "After dinner I noticed there was
blood on Raffaele's hand, but I was under the impression that it was
blood from the fish."
She then explains why her previous statements were unreliable: "In
regards to this 'confession' that I made last night, I want to make
clear that I'm very doubtful of the verity of my statements because they
were made under the pressures of stress, shock and extreme exhaustion.
Not only was I told I would be arrested and put in jail for 30 years,
but I was also hit in the head when I didn't remember a fact correctly. I
understand that the police are under a lot of stress, so I understand
the treatment I received."
Amanda Knox Found Guilty Again: Why the Court Could Be (Sort of) Right
So she says her previous statements were unreliable and claims the
language barrier made it even more difficult for her in those previous
interviews.Fair enough.
Then she writes: "However, it was under this pressure and after many
hours of confusion that my mind came up with these answers. In my mind I
saw Patrick in flashes of blurred images. I saw him near the basketball
court. I saw him at my front door. I saw myself cowering in the kitchen
with my hands over my ears because in my head I could hear Meredith
screaming. But I've said this many times so as to make myself clear:
these things seem unreal to me, like a dream, and I am unsure if they
are real things that happened or are just dreams my head has made to try
to answer the questions in my head and the questions I am being asked.
But the truth is, I am unsure about the truth and here's why:
1. The police have told me that they have hard evidence that places me
at the house, my house, at the time of Meredith's murder. I don't know
what proof they are talking about, but if this is true, it means I am
very confused and my dreams must be real.
2. My boyfriend has claimed that I have said things that I know are not
true. I KNOW I told him I didn't have to work that night. I remember
that moment very clearly. I also NEVER asked him to lie for me. This is
absolutely a lie. What I don't understand is why Raffaele, who has
always been so caring and gentle with me, would lie about this. What
does he have to hide? I don't think he killed Meredith, but I do think
he is scared, like me. He walked into a situation that he has never had
to be in, and perhaps he is trying to find a way out by disassociating
himself with me."
She went on to repeatedly assert she knows she didn't kill Meredith. But
how is it that neither of them could consistently say where they were
and what they were doing only days earlier? Why is it so confusing? They
would say the pressure from police got to them.
One thing that is corroborated is that a friend came to Sollecito's home
around 8:40 p.m. and saw Amanda there. But they both also turned off
their cell phones at around the same time between 8:30 and 9:00 p.m. on
Nov. 1, something that was completely out of the ordinary for both of
them. Why? So they wouldn't be bothered? Maybe. But the possible
inconsistencies continue into the following morning.
A
shop owner testified that he saw Amanda at 7:45 a.m the next morning
waiting for his store to open and that she went immediately to the
cleaning supplies. The defense argued his testimony was unreliable
because he waited a year to come forward.
Both Knox and Sollecito claim to have slept until 10:00 a.m. or 10:30
a.m. and yet Solliceto's computer showed activity at 5:32 a.m.
Knox says she returned to her home at 10:30 .m. to take a shower. She
said she had found the door open but went in anyway. She also stated she
saw some drops of blood in the bathroom sink she shared with Meredith
but assumed they were menstrual from one of her three roommates. She
went into Filomena Romanelli and Laura Mezzetti's bathroom to blow dry
her hair and saw what turned out to be Rudy Guede's feces in the toilet,
but didn't flush it. She returned to Sollecito's home, she said because
she became nervous.
At 12:08 p.m. Knox called her roommate Filomena Romanelli and apparently
said that she was at their house but cell phone records seem to show
she was likely still at Sollecito's home. She told Filomena about a
break-in at the house and yet didn't notify the police. In her detailed
letter home she says that at the point when she first went back to her
house (at around 10:30 a.m.) she just assumed the door had been left
open by one of her roommates, not a break-in. So if she had not been
back at her house yet, as cell phone records seem to show, and was still
at Sollecito's, would she have known about a break-in?
The pair was definitely at Knox's home around 12:30 p.m. on Nov. 2
because the Italian postal police showed up unannounced to inquire about
and return Meredith's cell phone, which was found in the garden of a
woman who lived nearby. At this point, no one had called the police and
yet in her letter home two days after the murder, Knox claimed they
called the police before the postal officers arrived. But cell phone
records suggest that was not the case. And why wouldn't they have called
the police as soon as they arrived if Knox had been so concerned about a
break-in?
Maybe more important, in that letter home, Knox describes a panic that developed as she realized the house had been broken into.
"Raffael told me he wanted to see if he could break down Merediths door,
he tried and cracked the door but he couldnt open it. it was then we
decided to call the cops."
Phone records show that Sollecito called the cops at 12:51 p.m., after talking to his sister who had been on the police force.
Yet Amanda said "while we were waiting" for the police, the postal
officers arrived. Since that does not appear to be true, it leads to
more questions about whether Knox and Sollecito were going to call the
police at all if the postal police had not happened to come to the door.
One thing that may have been proven is that the crime scene was staged
to make it look like a break in. There were no signs that someone had
entered from the outside and the broken window glass strongly suggests
it was broken from the inside. Who would want to stage the scene? It led
police to think it was someone with access to the house. Could it have
been that Knox and Sollecito were just trying to cover up the fact that
they were there that night when Rudy Guede arrived?
There was also extensive evidence that someone attempted to clean up the
house after the murder -- and yet, if Guede was doing the cleaning, you
would think he would have tried to wash away his DNA all over the scene
or at least flush the toilet that he had used. It's possible that
samples that appeared to have been of Knox's DNA mixed with the victim's
(which the defense disputes) could have been the result of an effort to
clean up the crime scene rather than involvement in the actual murder,
as prosecutors allege.
So does all of this prove that Amanda Knox and Rafaele Sollecito were in
the home the night Meredith Kercher was killed? No. And it certainly
does not change the reality that the physical evidence linking them to
the murder remains scant.
But it does at least explain why the police were and are suspicious, to
say the least -- and provides some context in a case that most Americans
view as cut-and-dry. The Italian authorities remain convinced more than
one person was involved in the murder, but without any real motive, the
evidence that either Knox or Sollecito were somehow involved remains
very thin.
Amanda's written statement to police may say it all. She concluded with
the line: "All I know is that I didn't kill Meredith, and so I have
nothing but lies to be afraid of."
Maybe that is truer than she knew.
Dan Abrams is ABC News' Chief Legal Correspondent and Anchor of 'Nightline."
No comments:
Post a Comment