British student murdered in Perugia, 3 suspects

Nova said:

My bad. There are numerous posts here that associate the "knife in the hand" story with the interrogation testimony and I inferred they were the same. I appreciate the correction.

But the statement remains obvious speculation. I don't see that it proves anything except that at some point, AK wondered if RS maybe was involved somehow.

As for who sleeps in our bed, how would we know such a thing unless we stay awake all night and watch? Sure, if I see my husband when I go to sleep and he's still there when I wake, I assume he was there all night. But if you challenged me as to whether he could have got up at some point, how could I swear he didn't? Maybe I'm an insensitive clod, but I don't wake up everytime he stirs, and, in fact, there have been occasions when he got up without my knowing it. I don't think he killed anyone, but maybe I should check back issues of the paper.

Click to expand...

IF...... you checked your papers and found out someone had been murdered the night before (your husband's ex let us say) would you continue to lie, change stories to fit known evidence, not know where or what you were doing the night before, and blame your neighbor for killing her??? Would you 'imagine' scenarios where by YOU were there at the killing too?

If the police asked you these same questions, would you not just say "I don't know" or "there is NO way for me to know that"?

Confusion, doubt or no knowledge are NOT REASONS TO LIE!

Brwnigirl said:

Where oh where are the transcripts?
The internet, newspapers and tv news do not provide us an with an unbiased view of what really occurred. Those sources give us the "facts" from their point of view, so not necessarily the facts. :banghead:

I sure wouldn't want the media deciding and influencing my guilt or innocence if I was charged with something. Facts don't seem to matter as much as what will sell. It is truly frightening, and I think it could happen to anyone.

Click to expand...

You could google for the transcripts. Or another excellent site is the Perugia Murder FILE forum which can also be found with google, then look at the links there... basically a goldmine of accurate information.

What sells for the media and what is valid evidence in court are two different things... in my opinion the media did not convict these three.

Nova said:

Nobody here has said that AK bears no responsibility for anything.

What I've said--and what the links demonstrate with greater authority--is that under the pressure of intense and extended interrogation (head slap aside, it isn't really disputed that the interrogation was both) it is not unusual for the suspect to lie and change his or her story.

How it often works is this: after the interrogator insists for some time that the suspect is lying, the suspect gives up and provides the story s/he thinks the interrogator wants to hear. The story is made up, so of course it doesn't fit all the facts. When this is pointed out, the suspect invents yet another story, etc. The process of challenge and re-invention continues until the interrogator has all the desired admissions in some form or another. That every story told includes untrue elements is dismissed as beside the point.

Click to expand...

Her changing stories don't come from one interrogation. IMO, if the cops wanted a particular story, once they got it that would be the end. It wasn't though.

LinasK said:

They don't have to be stupid to be arrogant, just like Scott Peterson's parents or the Anthonys! One thing I know is a lie in these transcripts, is that Raf didn't download the movie Amalie on his computer and that has been verified. All these parents are doing is re-spouting Amanda's lies. Just because it's the parents saying them, doesn't make them true.

Click to expand...

I can't think of a single parent who'd believe their child could do such a thing, but every murderer is somebodies child. I don't fault them for their views because they desperately need to believe she's innocent.

Isabella said:

To be honest i have no idea. Apparently her parents said on LKL she wouldnt have been extradited had she fled to Germany. I think these days most countries have a extradition warranty with each other.

Click to expand...

They said there would be no need to extradite her because there wasn't any evidence against her.

Isabella said:

I do believe the parents are lieing because some things they said on LKL arent true but its not that ...bah ill see if i can find links to what i read before and if i do ill post it.

Click to expand...

LK is a softball interviewer. The only times he challenged what Amanda said her parents became open mouthed stuttering until they could form an answer. It's obvious to me that they are so desperate to believe their daughter that any real questions posed about her guilt are very hard to deal with.

The LKL show didn't have one person who thought the trial was fair. They had two attorney's at the end of the show and neither one was pro Italian Court.

jjenny said:

It is my understanding that the prosecution didn't claim that she was actually raped. I think prosecution alleged some sort of sexual assault, which isn't the same as rape (in a technical sense).
"In Kercher's room, the DNA belonged mostly to Guede, whose traces were found on her purse, sweatshirt and bra. Guede said during his trial that he and Kercher had a romantic interlude that stopped short of sex earlier in the evening. A trace of his cells were also found on the vaginal swab of the victim, however no semen was present."
http://www.seattlepi.com/local/406495_knox22.html

Click to expand...

Sexual Assault is the new word for rape. It's used now in a lot of places that the word rape isn't used. JMO

IWJVM 12/08/09 transcript; http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0912/08/ijvm.01.html

Some excerpts;

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, let`s revisit the night of the crime. Investigators believe Meredith was murdered sometime around midnight. But Amanda`s then-boyfriend and co-defendant doesn`t call police until 12 hours later. That call, which the prosecution played at the end of their video reenactment, is full of contradictions.

First, the boyfriend, Raffaele, says there was a robbery. Then he says nothing was stolen. Also Amanda allegedly knew the position of Meredith`s body, even though she never admitted being in the room.

So Wendy Murphy, is knowing the position of the body damning evidence if she never admits to even being in the room?

WENDY MURPHY, FORMER PROSECUTOR: It`s one piece of a very big pile of evidence against her, absolutely. You know, she knew other things, as well.

For example, she told police she -- during the statement when she said she was there -- remember, she changed her story several times. First she wasn`t there, then she was there. But she was in a drug-fuelled haze, so she`s not exactly sure what she heard and saw. You know, she said, "I heard -- I heard Meredith screaming." Well, it turns out a neighbor said that there was a blood-curdling scream. But Amanda wouldn`t have known that, had she not been there.

There is so much evidence in this case. And I just want to tell folks, just Google "justice for Meredith," and you`ll find the true facts in this case. In my column at PatriotLedger.com goes into a lot of information that we don`t have a lot of time to get into tonight.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa.

COHEN: Name the physical evidence. Name the physical evidence.

MURPHY: I would be glad to. I`d be glad to.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Hey, let`s talk evidence.

MURPHY: Please, let`s. First of all the most important piece...

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Let me talk evidence for a second. And then you can...

MURPHY: Most important piece of evidence --

VELEZ-MITCHELL: ... respond, Wendy.

MURPHY: All right. OK.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Let`s talk about the broken window.

MURPHY: OK.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Investigators say that the broken window is too small for a person to fit through. There it is. So the question is, was it smashed to make it look like there was a break-in? The prosecutor said yes. And adds, "In whose interest would it be to stage a fake robbery? Only the people who live there," end quote. Now, of course, that was Meredith and Amanda Knox.

Raffaele`s DNA was found on Meredith`s bra clasp, but that piece of evidence was contaminated, according to the defense. It sat in the apartment for months after the murder.

The prosecution said a bloody footprint and this bloody footprint belonged to Raffaele. The defense argued, guess what? He had a hammer toe, and it would have left a different print.

And then there`s the alleged murder weapon, a knife found at Raffaele`s house. Remember, the crime occurred at Amanda`s house. Amanda and Meredith were living together, rooming. They were students. Amanda, the knife was found at Raffaele`s house, a totally different place. But it has Amanda`s DNA on the handle and Meredith`s DNA on the blade.

COHEN: Cell DNA.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: What?

COHEN: Cell DNA.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Cell DNA. OK.

COHEN: Not blood DNA.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: OK. So now that I have presented, now that I have presented the evidence, continue, Wendy. Continue, Wendy, to tell me...

MURPHY: Let me -- let me say a couple of things. First of all, let`s be very clear about the knife. It wasn`t just the knife that police believe was involved. They believe two knives were involved. But clearly, this one was involved, because Meredith`s blood was on the tip.

Now, let me be clear. Everyone on the defense team has been saying publicly, it wasn`t blood. It was only skin cells. As if that makes a difference. it was still on the tip of the knife.

But Sollecito, Raffaele Sollecito, said to police when they told him her DNA was on the tip of the knife that they found hidden in a shoebox, way in the back of his closet -- I don`t know what it was doing there. What do you think? Scrubbed clean with bleach, by the way. When they told him about her DNA being on the tip of the knife, you know what Sollecito said?

"Oh, yes, that`s from the time we were all having dinner at my place and I accidentally stabbed her while we were cooking." He said it was blood. And it was unrefuted evidence at trial. That`s why the prosecution gets to argue that it was, in fact, the victim`s blood.

So can we stop saying it wasn`t an important piece of evidence?

COHEN: ... bloody scene, Wendy.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Hold it, Brenda Wade -- Brenda Wade.

COHEN: This is a bloody, bloody scene. Wendy knows as well as I do bleach and all that other stuff that you try to get blood off of knives, it doesn`t work. It gets stuck in the hilt.

MURPHY: Oh, please.

COHEN: It gets stuck in the crevices of the knife.

MURPHY: Oh, please. That`s why there was only a tiny piece left.

COHEN: I mean, you`re an experienced prosecutor. You`re telling me that in this scene, where there was so much blood...

MURPHY: That`s why there was only a tiny bit left. They scrubbed it like crazy.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Please, wait! One at a time!

OK, let me just say this. Let me say this. The defense says it makes perfect sense for Amanda`s DNA to be on the handle, because it was found in her boyfriend`s house. So they cook. And so, of course, her DNA is going to be found on the handle.

And this was a roommate of hers that was murdered, so it makes sense that maybe a little DNA of the roommate shows up on the tip of the knife, because they all hung out together and they socialize together. Now what about that explanation, Wendy Murphy?

MURPHY: It was -- it was scrubbed clean with bleach, hidden in a shoe box way in the back of Raffaele`s closet. I don`t know where you keep your knives, Jane. Even -- you know, even clean college students might wash the knife. Why would you scrub it clean with bleach and hide it in your closet? He said it was bloody.

COHEN: Why wouldn`t he just throw it out?

MURPHY: Raffaele said it was bloody. Let me finish one point. Raffaele is the one who said it was blood from the victim, because he accidentally stabbed her. And guess what? Witnesses testified at trial she had never been to his apartment. Bad excuse.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right.

MURPHY: It was blood because it was the murder weapon.

COHEN: Wrong.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Hang on, everyone.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

C. KNOX: Amanda was actually questioned and interrogated for over 41 hours and it culminated in a 14-hour overnight, very aggressive interrogation. She told us she has never been more scared in her entire life. And at that stage in the game, you`re virtually willing to sign anything in order to get out of that situation.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VELEZ-MITCHELL: That was Amanda Knox`s dad. And after that very long interrogation, Amanda pointed the finger at her boss, bar owner Patrick Lumumba, who turns out had an alibi. That false accusation is why she got 26 years and her boyfriend only got 25.

But her family says after 41 hours of being interrogated in a very brutal fashion, she was scared. And she may have changed her story and admitted to something she didn`t do because she was being browbeaten.

We are delighted to have with us tonight, two good friends of Amanda Knox, Andrew Seliber and Jessica Nichols. Thank you so much for joining us.

Jessica, how is Amanda holding up in the wake of this devastating verdict?

JESSICA NICHOLS, FRIEND OF AMANDA KNOX: She`s, as always, an inspiration to us because she`s found that inner reserve of strength that is really remarkable. And she`s looking forward to pushing on and going on from here to find what comes next and another way to -- to find an end to this.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: What I heard was that she was sobbing during the verdict as the judge read it and then returned to her prison cell, sobbing hysterically, and that some of her jail mates, who are also foreigners from China, Kosovo and Romania, actually comforted her, and that she is quite popular behind bars. What do you know about that?

NICHOLS: I know that the people that are around her in there, they care about her, and they`ve come to know her as the same person that we do, who you can`t -- you can`t help but love. And they wanted to be there for her and help her. And the guards and the prisoners both have taken care of her since she -- since she came back, and that`s a comfort to us, as well.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Andrew Seliber, we`ve been talking about the evidence, particularly the knife evidence. Wendy Murphy, former prosecutor, is saying, "Hey, this knife evidence is pretty darn incriminating."

What do you say? What`s the defense explanation of the knife evidence?

ANDREW SELIBER, FRIEND OF AMANDA KNOX: Well, from how it`s been -- how it`s been explained to me by the lawyers and everybody is that there`s a lot of dispute over the knife, because when the scene was examined and you look at some imprints on the sheets, the knife imprint there doesn`t exactly match the knife that the prosecution says is the knife that was used in the murder.

And there`s a lot of inconclusive talk about the DNA that`s on the tip, whether or not it`s -- it`s enough and it`s a high enough percentage when it`s tested to be considered usable in court. And, you know, there`s a lot of debate for what`s a good standard in that.

And in addition, the DNA that was on that knife was tested out in the first test on it. There wasn`t enough for a second test.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Now, let me ask you a provocative question here. Play devil`s advocate. Did Amanda`s changing story seal her fate?

First, she told police she was not at the apartment the night of the murder. Then she signed a confession, putting herself at the scene and pointing the finger at her boss, a bar owner by the name of Patrick Lumumba. She wrote, "I met Patrick. We went to my apartment. Patrick had sex with Meredith. I confusedly remember that he killed her," end quote.

Then Amanda took that confession back, saying that she was browbeaten during an interrogation by the Italian police that went on for 41 hours. Listen to this from CBS`s "48 Hours."

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

A. KNOX: They said that I was going to go in prison for 30 years because I was hiding something. And they said that I was lying. I was terrified, because I didn`t know -- I didn`t know what to do anymore.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Jessica, do you believe she was browbeaten into the false confession that she later recanted?

NICHOLS: I take Amanda at her word. And if that`s what she said happened, then I do believe that.

And even more than that, it`s not the first time that this is something that the prosecutor, Magnini, has been involved in. This happened to an author named Douglas Preston, who was subjected to similar interrogation techniques.

And I think that, after that kind of pressure for that long in a language that you`re not completely familiar with, in a foreign country away from your family and your support system, I think that, you know, the browbeating, as it`s being called, is absolutely believable.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Yes, and I -- I think your point is absolutely well taken. It`s translation. Was something lost in translation? English, obviously, is her first language.

Everyone stay right where you are. We`re going to have more on the Amanda Knox verdict and the international outrage.

And a businessman lost $127 million -- $127 million -- gambling in Las Vegas, as much as $5 million a day. Now he`s playing the victim card. He`s blaming the casino, claiming they kept him drunk and stoned as he gambled away his fortune. It`s a wild story. How`s it going to play out in court?

But first, the Amanda Knox verdict splits the globe. Did the young woman known as Foxy Knoxy across Europe get a fair trial? Was her verdict a sign of anti-American sentiment?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The information that`s being reported out there that there was Amanda`s bloody fingerprints in the bathroom, that is completely false. There is no...

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MADISON PAXTON, FRIEND OF AMANDA KNOX: Amanda was being judged based on her character. It didn`t seem to have almost anything to do with evidence. When I was there, I saw -- every single day I was in court I saw jury members sleeping through Amanda`s defense. It seemed they had already convicted her and that means they felt like they...

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: You actually saw jurors sleeping?

PAXTON: Yes. Literally every single day I was in court. The prosecutor sleeps, the jury sleeps. I`ve seen people on the stand, the president even answering his cell phone while the trial is going on. But every time the prosecutor spoke, the jury was wide awake.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Tonight`s big issue. Culture clash. Was Amanda Knox found guilty because she was naive about Italian culture?

Amanda`s actions bugged the police after the murder. She was spotted at a lingerie shop with her boyfriend. Here are those photos from Newsweek.com. Amanda also allegedly did splits and cartwheels when she was questioned at the police station. Then there was the "All You Need is Love" T-shirt she wore to court and her ever-present smile. I mean, take a look at some of these photos. Italian prosecutors didn`t think that a woman should be smiling when she`s accused of murder.

Jessica, why did she behave this way?

NICHOLS: I think that Amanda smiles because it`s a source of strength and she`s trying to put on a brave face for her family and her friends who are supporting her. And it`s difficult for them.

And I think that, you know, more than anything, when you look at all this behavior, and they`ve taken so much of this as what has been used as evidence against her, really the behavior and the character and all that should not have this central role in a trial. It...

VELEZ-MITCHELL: But it does, Brenda Wade. That`s the point. Clinical psychologist, Brenda Wade, your analysis of this situation?

BRENDA WADE, CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGIST: It definitely -- I`m sorry, Jane, under no circumstances would somebody who`s accused of murder be appropriate to sit and smile at the very, very least. If the woman who was murdered was indeed her friend, to look sad about it would be appropriate. The cartwheels.

And unfortunately, one of the things we have to look at is the impression that`s left on the minds of the jurors. A video is a very compelling thing. Because when you see an image, you hear words that tell a story. We have evidence that the mind completes the story before you get to the end.

So there`s a lot here in terms of her behavior, the video, that would leave the jurors deeply impressed that she`s guilty. And she didn`t help by sitting there smiling.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Ninety percent of communication is nonverbal. I think that`s another way of saying it.

WADE: That`s right.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Terry from Massachusetts, your question or thought?

CALLER: Yes, I want to know how come nobody talks about the victim or their family? I mean, can anybody imagine what the family is going through?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Wendy Murphy?

MURPHY: Yes. You know, one of the saddest things about this case is that the victim is from another country. I think we`d at least have more balance on the airwaves if she had a presence here. And that`s a bias that I really think is doing a disservice to truth.

You know, the only thing that matters is what really happened. It doesn`t really tell us anything that Amanda is nice and she`s cute and -- that`s what we`re all latching on to, because it`s really hard to look at a face of such a sweet girl and think...

VELEZ-MITCHELL: This is the face of the victim right now that we`re looking. This is the face of the victim.

MURPHY: That`s right.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Let me go back to Jessica.

MURPHY: And let`s focus on that. And talk about the evidence and not how sweet Amanda is. Let`s talk about...

VELEZ-MITCHELL: We have been talking about the evidence. And we...

MURPHY: Not a lot in the past ten minutes. No, we haven`t touched on the most important evidence in my opinion, Jane. That -- no one is disputing it and they can`t, and that`s why it doesn`t get a lot of air time. Five different blood spots in the cottage where the murder took place...

VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right.

MURPHY: ... a mixture of the victim`s blood and Amanda`s DNA. Three different rooms.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: But no footprints of Amanda Knox is around anywhere in the blood room. So how do you explain no bloody footprints?

MURPHY: There was a footprint that matched Amanda.

Evidently the entire courtroom was doing something other than listening to the defense. I'll take what she says with a huge grain of salt. If all of this had been going on I'd think at least one credible news source would back it up. For now it's just her word. The word of somebody who takes Amanda at her word. :loser:

Isabella said:

Germany would have extradited her. They wouldnt really have had no choice in the matter.

Click to expand...

Did you even read what I said in the post YOU quoted? I think if you go back and read what I wrote, you will see that what I said is Edda wasn't referring to whether or not Italy OR Germany could extradite. She was saying they wouldn't because none of the interrogation/coerced confession would have happend and therefore Italy would have no reason nor desire to even want to extradite AK. It is clear, to me, in the excerpt from the interview I quoted, that is what she meant.

It's not a question of whether or not Italy or Germany can extradite. Obviously, I know they can and I'm sure AK's parents know that, too. Again, they clearly aren't stupid people.

Maybe if you took the time to actually read what is said instead of being in such a rush to make snap comments on every one of my posts, I wouldn't have to reiterate eveything I say. It's not fair for you to misrepresent what she actually meant. That's one of the ways that bad and incorrect information gets out there. I know I'm careful about the information I put out there and it would be great if you could do the same.

Edda did NOT say Amanda couldn't be extradited. She said she wouldn't have been. BIG difference.

Isabella said:

It wasnt a political crime though.

If they hadnt handed her over there are punishments and why would they go through that for a girl thats not even German?

Click to expand...

It doesn't have to be a political crime for the prosecution to have political motivation to have them found guilty.

Isabella said:

Well it made Guede look like he was running so why wouldnt it apply to her also?.

Click to expand...

Because her DNA wasn't everywhere unlike Guede. Don't forget that what first implicated AK's involvement was her statements during interrogation, whether coerced or otherwise. If she had gone to Germany and had not been interrogated, they would have had no reason to suspect her alleged involvment.

Isabella said:

In addition to that her flatmate had just been brutally murdered and its generally customary to stay around and be available for questioning...not go to another country.

Click to expand...

Unless you're not native to that country and have no family there, as is the case with Amanda. Add to that the possibility of her innocence and there's really no reason for her not to seek comfort and safety with her family in Germany as they suggested. She herself chose not to go. Wouldn't a guilty person jump at the chance to skip the country? I would think, so.JMO

She chose not to "run", also unlike Guede.

padngton said:

>>snipped<<

this case just incenses me as had the verdict been not guilty, AK would prolly have lauded Italy as the greatest country in the world; however, since that was not the case - it has become a personal attack on her...that well-known saying, "When in Rome...;" don't take that too literally in a foreign country and do things you normally wouldn't do and then expect your Government to get involved and rescue you and then we wouldn't even be discussing this...a little common sense can go a long way...so, too, can the truth...

Click to expand...

I haven't really heard her family or Amanda talking negatively against all of Italy. Just the prosecution. Actually, Amanda thanked the prosection during her court statement for trying to get the bottom of someone's life being taken even though "they are not able to understand" her. Matter of fact, Italy's Supreme court has found that AK's interrogation was illegal and her rights were violated, according to her parents. Easily verfied.

Dan, I mean absolutely no offense, but I have to say, while informative, none of your posts have sealed Amanda's or Raf's guilt for me. Only their innocence, IMO. Thank you.

Tizzel, Is your position that everything is a conspiracy vs AK?

What is your position on her 2 page letter (still accusing Patrick), her e-mails
home and the mixed blood spots around the cottage with AK and MKs DNA?

Just curious of whether you think she is innocent, or are just playing devil's advocate.

Tizzle said:

Dan, I mean absolutely no offense, but I have to say, while informative, none of your posts have sealed Amanda's or Raf's guilt for me. Only their innocence, IMO. Thank you.

Click to expand...

Could you elaborate on what post seal their innocence in your opinion?

Or better yet what evidence/facts support your position?

Wait a minute.... is it true that the knife was found "in a box in the back of RS's closet?" That's what Wendy Murphy alleges on the 'Jane Velez-Mitchell Show." That's the first time I've heard such a thing.

Can anyone here confirm that piece of info and do you know of (another) source for that? That is a huge deal, IMHO, if true.

SleuthyGal said:

Wait a minute.... is it true that the knife was found "in a box in the back of RS's closet?" That's what Wendy Murphy alleges on the 'Jane Velez-Mitchell Show." That's the first time I've heard such a thing.

Can anyone here confirm that piece of info and do you know of (another) source for that? That is a huge deal, IMHO, if true.

Click to expand...

I believe, not positive though, that the knife was found in his home then PLACED in a shoebox and removed by police... that is what I have read somewhere :waitasec: .

Isabella said:

It wasnt a political crime though.

If they hadnt handed her over there are punishments and why would they go through that for a girl thats not even German?

Click to expand...

I was merely listing possible challenges to extradition because AK's parents may believe that one or more of them would have been successful.

I think the most likely to be successful challenge (in their eyes) is probably lack of evidence. But the "political" exception isn't based on the nature of the crime necessarily, but whether the prosecution itself seems politically motivated. That, of course, is what some (not I or anyone here lately) are claiming the prosecution of AK was.

Any nation that respects the rule of law has to evaluate challenges to extradition requests. It has nothing to do with protecting the nation's own citizens (except in the remote sense that if you mistreat foreign nationals, you may set a precedent for your own citizens to be mistreated abroad).

More importantly, Tizzle cites the interview above and shows that AK's parents seem to be saying that if AK had left immediately for Germany, she wouldn't have been in Italy to be interrogated and observed. Hence, there would be no false statements and no testimony that her affect was suspicious. In other words, the parents may be saying there wouldn't have been an extradition request or a need to challenge that extradition on legal grounds.

Either way, I don't think they're assuming Germany would refuse to extradite just "because." Obviously, Germany did extradite RG.

Why is it important about the extradition anyway?

Rudy was not extradited, he was on a train without a ticket to return anyway.

Tizzle said:

Dan, I mean absolutely no offense, but I have to say, while informative, none of your posts have sealed Amanda's or Raf's guilt for me. Only their innocence, IMO. Thank you.

Click to expand...

How do you explain her DNA mixed with that of the victim's found in the apartment? Some samples were Amanda's blood mixed with the blood of the victim?
How does that point to her innocence?

dgfred said:

Why is it important about the extradition anyway?

Click to expand...

Her parents have stated that if she left for Germany right after the murder she would not be in a position she is in. We are debating whether Germany would have extradited her back to Italy.

Debating 'ifs' can be very difficult.

I'm starting a new thread. Please wait to post for a few minutes.

Thanks,

Salem

Please continue here: British student murdered in Perugia, Amanda Knox convicted #2 - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community


I'll ask to have this thread locked.