Amanda Knox: The New Mumia
By Ann Coulter | September 08, 2011 | 16:26
Despite liberals' desperate need for Europeans to like them, the American media have enraged the entire nation of Italy with their bald-faced lies about a heinous murder in Perugia committed by a fresh-faced American girl, Amanda Knox.
The facts aren't elusive: In December 2009, the Italian court released a 400-plus page report detailing the mountains of evidence that led the judges and jury to conclude that Knox, along with her Italian beau, Raffaele Sollecito, and a petty thief of her acquaintance, Rudy Guede, had murdered Knox's English roommate, Meredith Kercher, on the evening of Nov. 1, 2007.
Now liberals are howling that the DNA evidence was "contaminated," but they always say that. It wasn't. And the DNA was already thoroughly vetted at trial.
Nonetheless, let's consider only a tiny slice of the evidence available to the police in the first week after the murder -- long before any DNA tests came back.
Murders and murder convictions obviously occurred before 1986 -- the first time DNA was used in any criminal investigation -- so it is possible to establish guilt with no DNA at all.
Knox's first-of-several alibis for the night of the murder was that she was at her boyfriend (and co-defendant) Sollecito's house all night, sound asleep until 10 a.m. the next morning.
A few days later, when that was proved false by telephone records, eyewitnesses and Sollecito's admission that it was a lie, Knox claimed she was in the house during Meredith's murder ... and she knew who the murderer was!
She said it was her boss, Patrick Lumumba, the owner of a popular bar in town:
"He wanted her. ... 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. ... I can't remember if Meredith was screaming and if I heard thuds but I could imagine what was going on."
Solely because of Knox's claim that Lumumba murdered Meredith, he was arrested and sat in jail for two weeks before being released when the police discovered about a hundred eyewitnesses who could place him at his bar all night, the night of the murder.
If the police were intent on framing Knox for the murder, they were easily distracted by this wild goose chase.
Knox later said she falsely accused Lumumba only because the police wanted her to do so.
But absent Knox's false accusation, there would have been no reason for the police to consider Lumumba a suspect in the first place. He was a successful entrepreneur in Perugia, married with a child, and had no connection whatsoever to the murdered girl.
Knox's effort to frame an innocent man was nothing but a desperate attempt to throw suspicion off herself. In the process, she inadvertently revealed that she knew something only the police knew about the murder: that Meredith had also been sexually assaulted.
Police first came to the house the day after the murder to investigate a burglary in the bedroom of another roommate, Filomena Romanelli, that had been reported by Knox and Sollecito.
But the break-in turned out to be staged. Among many other reasons, glass from the broken window was on top of the piles of clothes thrown on the floor. (Always remember to break the window before trying to stage a burglary!)
Also, nothing had been stolen from Filomena's room. Of course, that wasn't known by anyone except the fake "burglar" until Filomena returned and determined her jewelry and other valuables were still there.
So it is especially telling that when Sollecito had called the police to report the "burglary" in two separate, recorded phone calls, he said nothing had been stolen -- despite the fact that Filomena had not yet come home. The only way Sollecito would know nothing was stolen was if he had helped stage the burglary himself.
Also highly suspicious, when the police first arrived and Knox was the only roommate there, she lied to them, driving them away from Meredith's locked bedroom door by assuring them that Meredith always locked her door, even to go to the bathroom.
So the police continued to investigate the alleged burglary and ignored Meredith's room, until Filomena arrived, found out Meredith's door was locked and demanded the police break it down, telling them -- contra Knox -- that Meredith never locked her door.
Everyone in the apartment -- the police, Filomena and her friends -- gathered around Meredith's door before it was kicked in. Everyone, that is, except Knox and Sollecito, who moved as far away as possible, to the other end of the apartment, strangely uninterested in seeing what was behind Meredith's door.
Now Knox is back to claiming she was in Sollecito's apartment all night on Nov. 1 -- with no evidence to support that story, but witnesses, phone and computer records contradicting it. Her only alibi witness is her co-defendant, Sollecito, and he's already told the police that he has lied for her.
Based on the wounds on Meredith's body, investigators conclusively determined that she had multiple attackers.
By now, the only people who believe Knox and Sollecito are the usual criminal apologists and their friends in the American media.
From Tawana Brawley, Mumia and the Central Park rapists, to the Duke lacrosse players and Karl Rove, liberals are always on the wrong side of a criminal case. A few times could be a coincidence; every time is evidence of a psychological disorder.
As described in "Demonic," liberals defend the guilty and impugn the innocent not only because they side with barbarians, but because a fair and just system of law challenges their hegemony as judges of the universe.
- Ann Coulter's blog
- Login to post comments




















Comments
→ Ann
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Thu, 09/08/2011 - 4:45pm.
Sorry, but words fail me at this moment. I always wondered what I'd say if I got the chance to address you, and now I know. Please excuse my giddy little schoolboy demeanor.
Barack Obama - the ORIGINAL BIRTHER
Yeah, well, I ain't missing my chance!
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Thu, 09/08/2011 - 5:00pm.
Ann, will you marry me??? Sure, my wife will be pissed at first, but she'll eventually come around. :)
→ Faint heart, eh?
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Thu, 09/08/2011 - 5:08pm.
Well, I just live about 30 miles down the road from that FLDS place, so I'm practically there already.
Barack Obama - the ORIGINAL BIRTHER
I'll send her to the liberal blogs for a few days.
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Thu, 09/08/2011 - 5:26pm.
Let her see how this kind of thing is perfectly normal.
If that don't work...hey, it was good enough for King Henry VIII.
Execute Mumia Now!
Submitted by BD on Thu, 09/08/2011 - 5:09pm.
Execute Mumia Now!
→ Actually . . .
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Thu, 09/08/2011 - 5:16pm.
In a twisted way, Knox is the downtrodden liberal white's version of OJ; the European justice system being so out of touch with us that they couldn't possibly give an American Liberal a fair trial.
Barack Obama - the ORIGINAL BIRTHER
Good lesson
Submitted by Einstein on Thu, 09/08/2011 - 5:18pm.
Liberals need Europeans to like America. The liberal media have pissed off the entire nation of Italy. Amanda Knox killed her roommate. I found the twilight zone. No motive, no witnesses, and no murder weapon. The prosecution's hand picked expert testified that the DNA evidence was unreliable. So... guilty?
♡ Einstein
Birds of a feather
Submitted by DontFeedTheTrolls on Thu, 09/08/2011 - 5:28pm.
From Tawana Brawley, Mumia and the Central Park rapists, to the Duke lacrosse players and Karl Rove, liberals are always on the wrong side of a criminal case.
Don't forget the Gates case in Harvard. You know, the one where the police 'acted stupidly'.
That was a great rundown of
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Thu, 09/08/2011 - 5:41pm.
That was a great rundown of the whole affair. Looking at all of teh media including FNC you would think this girl was being railroaded.
No motive, no weapon, no eyewitnesses?
Submitted by UpNorth on Thu, 09/08/2011 - 6:16pm.
You do know, Einstein, that eyewitnesses are the most unreliable of all evidence presented? It's quite evident from your post that you read absolutely nothing that Ann Coulter wrote, correct? Nothing of Knox's lies to investigators, her attempt to pin the murder on a man who wasn't there? And, how long did Knox and Sollecito have to dispose of a knife from the time of the murder until the murder was found? Not to mention her attempts to keep the cops from even looking in the murder room.
But hey, if you want to hang your hat on her rotating alibis, so be it.
Circumstantial evidence
Submitted by Einstein on Thu, 09/08/2011 - 6:25pm.
That's all you have, and that's all the prosecution has. I don't give a s**t if she's guilty or not, and the American media has no effect on the outcome of the trial. I get the point Coulter was trying to make, tying Knox in with Mumia abu Jamal (whose name hasn't been mentioned in the media since...), but this is entirely an opinion piece. Knox lied, maybe to cover up her own guilt, maybe to cover up her boyfriend's guilt. Maybe she's a pathological liar and knows no other way to communicate. But there is a whole lot missing from this case as I previously noted: the witness who put Knox at the location of the murder was on heroin when he testified, and was immediately dismissed. The DNA knife had none of the victim's DNA on it. And the motive of a girl with an unblemished record? There's gotta be a motive.
♡ Einstein
Einstein,---
Submitted by matthewdean on Thu, 09/08/2011 - 6:58pm.
another liberal username that is the polar opposite of the fool behind it.
Many have been convicted with "circumstantial" evidence; but fool that you are, you bleat, "That's all you have, and that's all the prosecution has."
What do you have, EINSTEIN, other than your rehashing of the "opinions" of the side that lost the case?
MD
I don't know where you live, non-Einstein,
Submitted by UpNorth on Fri, 09/09/2011 - 10:47am.
but motive is a hook for those who know nothing about the law. Motive is something defense lawyers hang their whole defense on, it's not an element of a crime.
It's actually something that some people have come up with, to try to explain the unexplainable. Why Amanda couldn't have had lesbian sex with her, then killed her, she had no motive to do that. Or, Amanda can't be a thrill killer there's no motive there.
UpNorth, I think the
Submitted by Scuba Dude on Fri, 09/09/2011 - 10:08am.
UpNorth,
I think the anti-Einstein is a victim of the CSI effect. DNA is one of many tools used to bring criminals to justice but it is not the only one.
Do you think anti-Einstein was bleeting as hard as this for the Duke lacrosse team?
Nope, Scoob, I can't
Submitted by UpNorth on Fri, 09/09/2011 - 10:49am.
picture him having any thoughts for the Duke LaCrosse team.
And, yeah, this is a manifestation of the "CSI effect". Some of the maroons picked for jury duty will soon be demanding DNA evidence in traffic ticket cases, I can see that coming already.
Back-slappers
Submitted by Einstein on Fri, 09/09/2011 - 12:46pm.
The prosecution's entire case came down to DNA evidence. Have you even followed this story? I can only conclude from your responses you've only read this short opinion piece.
♡ Einstein
Yeah, I've read
Submitted by UpNorth on Fri, 09/09/2011 - 6:26pm.
articles on the case. What's your point, that you've selectively picked stories that support your view? Cuz that's what it looks like, Sparky.
The defense has "new" witnesses? Where did they purchase them? As for their "experts" on DNA, hired experts are extremely common now, and if the linchpin in this case is DNA, why is the defense so concentrated on discrediting witnesses?
You still seem confused
Submitted by Einstein on Fri, 09/09/2011 - 6:47pm.
New witness? No. Contaminated DNA. The judge's hand picked independent DNA experts testified that the DNA results were unreliable. These aren't DNA experts hired by the defense, they were hired by the court. In other words, the experts discredited the forensic chief.
Next.
♡ Einstein
In other words, we have dueling experts.
Submitted by UpNorth on Fri, 09/09/2011 - 7:07pm.
"Under repeated and insistent questioning, Vecchiotti acknowledged that DNA belonging to Kercher could have been on the blade of the knife the prosecution claims is the murder weapon. "It is a complete DNA profile, but it is not reliable. Yes, it could be Meredith's," Vecchiotti told the court". Vecchiotti is the "independent expert". So, yes it could be the victim's blood on the knife, but it's the opinion of the expert that it, wait for it, could be the victim's. She couldn't say it wasn't the victim's DNA
"In addressing Sollecito's DNA on the victim's bra clasp, which the experts claimed could have gotten there through contamination by the police, Comodi asked the experts how they thought Sollecito's DNA could have been transferred onto to the clasp if no other DNA of his was found in the house. They replied that "anything is possible," and that the transfer of DNA has been the subject of much international debate". Comodi is the prosecutor. So, Sollecito's DNA is on the bra clasp, but "anything is possible". They can't prove that there was transfer, but they do allude to it.
Do we?
Submitted by Einstein on Sat, 09/10/2011 - 10:12am.
The infamous “double DNA” knife came to court with its own bodyguard, wrapped up in a red bow, boxed in cardboard with a sign that said (yes, in English): ” Handle with care.” We now know it was just a cheapo kitchen knife that Amanda used for cooking, hence her DNA on the handle. Experts found no DNA of the victim nor any blood. The knife, we must remember, was found in Raffaele’s flat, not at the murder scene.
Police forensic chief Patrizia Stefanoni did come to court to defend her DNA collection and testing methods. Wearing a see-through brown silk blouse and looking haggard, she would have done better to spend this month sunning in Positano. The more she explained her techniques, the more laughter she evoked. Not only did she reveal that she stores evidence in plastic bags, but she boasted of sticking bags containing biological material at the house of the crime … in a freezer packed with potential evidence.
♡ Einstein
Holy CSI, Batman.
Submitted by UpNorth on Sat, 09/10/2011 - 11:23am.
She actually "Stores evidence in plastic bags", and stores biological evidence in a freezer? She ought to be marched out right now, and after apologizing to that murdering little freak, should be shot, or hung, or maybe drawn and quartered. Just where and how do you think biological evidence should be stored?
You lost any credibility you may have had at "motive".
Wow Ann Coulter
Submitted by shawn. on Thu, 09/08/2011 - 9:33pm.
Welcome to NB. Hopefully we will have the chance to interact with you. Unlike the one sided conversations with Mr Bozell or Mrs Malkin :-)
~I wonder how many buddy requests Ann has gotten
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Fri, 09/09/2011 - 9:59am.
in the last 17 hours...
Now you guys know how I felt when Chuck Norris joined NB.
Has Chuck responded to you
Submitted by Scuba Dude on Fri, 09/09/2011 - 10:10am.
Has Chuck responded to you Bru? Are ya buds now? ;-)
~Alas
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Fri, 09/09/2011 - 11:14am.
My BR and deluge of breathless, wide-eyed PM's have been met with stony silence. It seems only fitting though, as checking his messages and requests, much less answering them, is far beneath the Dignity of such a demi-god. *sniffle*
(Okay, I admit it, I just sent him a BR and that only because my sense of humor demanded it)
I doubt Coulter has received a buddy request
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 09/09/2011 - 7:10pm.
from Free Stinker since Ann slammed his heroine Sarah Palin a couple of days ago.
And, by the way, Ann may very well be right about the Knox case, but the allegation that liberals "always claim DNA contamination" and are "always on the wrong side of criminal cases" is absolutely preposterous but unsurprising considering the source.
Jer
Yeah,---
Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 09/09/2011 - 9:06pm.
kinda like most of the posts by liberals on NB's.
MD
Well, Matthew...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 09/09/2011 - 10:38pm.
broad brush generalizations are a pet peeve of mine regardless of who makes them.
Jer
Well, Jer---
Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 09/09/2011 - 10:47pm.
in that case, I believe most liberals are irrevocably stupid. (h/t rickbren for the 'irrevocably stupid')
I believe that anyone who thinks Obama is the most intelligent potus ever, is dumber than a liberal troll.
I believe anyone who thinks Obama is a great orator, is organically dead between the ears.
Hope my generalizations didn't make you peeve your pants.
MD