The SunBreak
posted 07/06/10 09:14 AM | updated 07/06/10 09:14 AM
Featured Post! | Views: 0 | Comments : 8 | Crime

Now Amanda Knox's Parents are in Court

By Michael van Baker
Editor
Recommend this story (0 votes)
Share


Watch CBS News Videos Online

A little while ago, King County Superior Court Judge Michael Heavey had to defend himself for his support of Amanda Knox. Now her parents have had to appear, in Italy, at a pre-trial hearing for slander. If the case goes forward, they'll have to return in mid-October for trial--though it's likely they would have been there anyway, as that's when Amanda Knox's appeal of her 26-year murder sentence begins.

At issue is their response in a London Times interview in 2008, when her father recounted what Knox told him about her interrogation:

Curt says: "Amanda was abused physically and verbally. She told us she was hit in the back of the head by a police officer with an open hand, at least twice. The police told her, 'If you ask for a lawyer, things will get worse for you' and 'If you don’t give us some explanation for what happened, you’re going to go to jail for a very long time.'" Edda adds tearfully: "She was told she wouldn’t ever see her family again, and her family is everything to her."

Police in Perugia have denied those allegations, and both Amanda and her parents now face slander charges. Could we get the Perugia-Seattle sister city association in on this? If it felt a teensy bit like overkill to go after Amanda Knox for slander in addition to convicting her of murder, the case against her parents is remarkable in its devotion to the letter of the law. With a criminal justice system so thorough, Italy must near to stamping out crime entirely.

Save and Share this article
Permalink
Tags: amanda knox, curt knox, edda knox, parents, slander, trial, murder, perugia, police, abuse, defamation + add tags
savecancel
CommentsRSS Feed
When controlled hysteria cracks....
''....the case against her parents is remarkable in its devotion to the letter of the law.''

That's a rather unusual way to describe barely masked frenzy.
Comment by John Winters
1 week ago
( 0 votes)
( report abuse ) ( )
RE: When controlled hysteria cracks....
I'm pretty sure that's irony.
Comment by Jeremy M. Barker
1 week ago
( 0 votes)
( report abuse ) ( )
Try this
So what's worse, getting slapped in the back of the head or being told that you have AIDS?

Shortly after her arrest Amanda Knox was told that her HIV test had come back positive. There was no scientific reason to believe she might be HIV positive; it was just a trick to collect evidence about her past sexual encounters. Like any person who has been told they have AIDS, she was in tears. She writes it's the worst thing that ever happened to her.

In her diary page she writes of the six sexual contacts in her entire life and she wonders how this could have happened. Of course once the Italians had the diary pages they were looking for they were free to tell her that she wasn't positive after all. The police had hoped they would find a link to the real killer, Rudy Guede, who they had arrested a few days earlier but she didn't list him.

It wasn't a complete loss though they could still sell the pages to the European tabloids. The tabloids all reported that she had had sex with six Italian men during her time in Italy. Barbie writes:

(Newsweek, 14-Jul-08)
"And by her own account in a prison diary leaked to the media, she details her sexual escapades with at least seven men she'd been with in her three months in Italy before her arrest. She even wrote that she might have HIV and then she uses a process of elimination to narrow down who might have given it to her."

She had not had sex with seven Italian men during her short time in Italy and the diary didn't say she had. They flat out lied.

Back to the question of the allegations of defamation against Amanda and her family. The HIV incident removes all doubt that the Italian authorities were willing to abuse her and to lie about it.

Each and every one of the people who participated in this scandal must be prosecuted and driven from their professions in disgrace.
Comment by PhanuelB
1 week ago
( 0 votes)
( report abuse ) ( )
Where was the Knox Legal Team??
If the Know legal team is so grand, why would they allow Amanda Knox to commit the crime of Slander in open court. Why would hey not have warned the parents of the dangers of "second hand slander". Perhaps they did not think than Mignini would stoop that low? Perhaps they did not understand how easy it is to charge someone with slander. What gives??
Comment by TonydelBalzo
1 week ago
( 0 votes)
( report abuse ) ( )
Twelve on one - all night - she cracked
Reading that there were 12 detectives teaming up on a 20 year old who understood neither the language nor the interrigation process brings one simple word to mind. That word is: COERCION.

Of course they treated Amanda badly. They knew that there was no tape recording happening. Of course they "coached" her answers to include Patrick. And it goes without saying, given all the pressure to solve this case before the US Embassy got involved, they most certainly struck her in the head.

I also like the way Magnini, at trial, trivalized the attack by referring to it as a benign "Cuffing". A blow to the head is still a blow to the head.
Comment by TonydelBalzo
1 week ago
( 0 votes)
( report abuse ) ( )
Controlled hysteria and the creative spirit.
I am often accused of writing confusingly and relying too heavily on the impact of implication to create my meaning. My apologies. Let me make myself clear. The party in this debacle which I think engages a controlled form of hysteria so effectively demonstrated by the working methods of Noel Coward among others, is the combined forces of the Italian judicial system. This institution is then supported by a national press which operates along the same lines but for less quasi-religious reasons (in their case, hysteria controlled or otherwise helps to sell newspapers). At the lowest level in this system (if that's possible), the Italian public at large takes up the cudgel and does a fine job of using a controlled form of hysteria to add their fagot to the strega's pyre. Take the ''witness,'' Nara Capezalli, as an example. This woman was willing to lie straight-facedly about what she had heard. It is communal hysteria which makes her feel legitimated to do this. Think about the kind of self-righteousness felt by the individual member of the mob surrounding Marie Antoinette's guillotine and you'll have some idea of what I'm talking about. To get the harlot's head chopped off, it's legal to do or say whatever is necessary.
In the end, when all of these parties are working together, what you have is a formula for judicial disaster on a grand, national scale, something which hysterical Italian society loves so much because of the sheer unadulterated chaos that ensues. This then gives them ample opportunity to talk at 657 mph in mock genuine concern that justice be sought, for hours, months, years on end, which is good for their health, but very bad for Amanda Knox's.
Comment by John Winters
1 week ago
( 0 votes)
( report abuse ) ( )
True Justice For Meredith Kercher
Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were unanimously found guilty of the murder of Meredith Kercher because the evidence against them was overwhelming.

They repeatedly told the police a pack of lies in the days after Meredith's murder.

On 5 November 2007, Knox and Sollecito were confronted with proof that they had lied and were given another opportunity to tell the truth. However, they both chose to tell the police even more lies.

Sollecito's new alibi was shattered by computer forensic evidence and his mobile phone records.

Knox accused an innocent man, Diya Lumumba, of murdering Meredith despite knowing full well that he was completely innocent. She didn't recant her false and malicious allegation against Lumumba the whole time he was in prison. She admitted that it was her fault that Lumumba was in prison in an intercepted conversation with her mother.

Knox's account of what happened on 2 November 2007 is contradicted by her mobile phone records.

Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito both gave multiple conflicting alibis. Neither Knox nor Sollecito have credible alibis for the night of the murder despite three attempt each. At the trial, Sollecito refused to corroborate Knox's alibi that she was at his apartment.

Rudy Guede's bloody footprints led straight out of Meredith's room and out of the house. He didn't lock Meredith's door, remove his trainers, go into Filomena's room or the bathroom that Meredith and Knox shared.

He didn't scale the vertical wall outside Filomena's room or gain access through the window. The break-in was clearly staged. This indicates that somebody who lived at the cottage was trying to deflect attention away from themselves and give the impression that a stranger had broken in and killed Meredith.

Guede had no reason to stage the break-in and there was no physical evidence that he went into Filomena's room.

The scientific police found a mixture of Amanda Knox's DNA and Meredith's blood on the floor.

There was no physical evidence that Rudy Guede went into the blood-spattered bathroom. However, the scientific police found irrefutable proof that Knox and Sollecito tracked Meredith's blood into this bathroom.

Amanda Knox’s DNA was found mingled with Meredith’s blood in three different places in the bathroom: on the ledge of the basin, on the bidet, and on a box of Q Tips cotton swabs. Knox's DNA and Meredith's blood had united into one single streak on the basin and bidet which means they were deposited simultaneously.

Sollecito left a visible bloody footprint on the blue bathmat.

According to two imprint experts, the woman's bloody shoeprint on the pillow under Meredith's body matched Knox's foot size. The bloody shoeprint was incompatible with Meredith's shoe size.

Knox's and Sollecito's bare bloody footprints were revealed by luminol in the hallway. Knox’s DNA and Meredith’s DNA was found mixed together in one of the bloody footprints.

An abundant amount of Raffaele Sollecito's DNA was found on Meredith's bra clasp. Sollecito must have applied considerable pressure to the clasp in order to have left so much DNA. The hooks on the clasp were damaged which confirms that Sollecito had gripped them tightly.

Amanda Knox's DNA was found on the handle of the double DNA knife and a number of independent forensic experts - Dr. Patrizia Stefanoni, Dr. Renato Biondo and Professor Francesca Torricelli - categorically stated that Meredith’s DNA was on the blade.

Sollecito knew that Meredith's DNA was on the blade which is why he twice lied about accidentally pricking her hand whilst cooking.

The defence experts were unable to prove that there had been any contamination. Alberto Intini, head of the Italian police forensic science unit, pointed out that unless contamination has been proved, it does not exist.

Amanda Knox voluntarily admitted that she involved in Meredith's murder in her handwritten note to the police on 6 November 2007. She stated on at least four separate occasions that she was at the cottage when Meredith was killed. She also claimed that Sollecito was at the cottage.
Comment by Harry Rag
1 week ago
( 0 votes)
( report abuse ) ( )
Italy is a third world country
The Italian government is as corrupt as any other third world government. It's the ass of the EU. Knox will not find justice there.
Comment by QuiteRite
1 day ago
( 0 votes)
( report abuse ) ( )
Add Your Comment
Name:
Email:
(will not be displayed)
Subject:
Comment: