The Daily Beast and Amanda Knox’s Trial By Media

amanda The Daily Beast and Amanda Knoxs Trial By Media

Knox.

Over the past two years, while most American coverage of the Meredith Kercher murder case either played the story straight or raised questions about the competence of the Italian justice system, Tina Brown’s The Daily Beast followed the lead of the British tabloids, dishing on the sexual proclivities and bizarre comportment of Amanda Knox, sometimes gleefully depicting the young woman improbably convicted of participating in the murder of her roommate as a proven villain.

One piece in 2009 described Ms. Knox as a “starlet” with an “aura about her.”

“She looks comfortable in the courtroom, almost as if she is playing a role rather than facing charges of cutting Meredith’s throat while Sollecito held back her arms and Guede sexually assaulted her,” reporter Barbie Latza Nadeau wrote.

“When [Amanda and Raffaele] got into the prison van at the end of each hearing, the press had bets on whether or not they got to have sex the whole way back, or whether they just talked dirty to each other through the bars,” she added.

The fifty-plus articles on the trial written by Ms. Latza Nadeau, a Newsweek Rome correspondent, were compiled and expanded upon in one of The Daily Beast’s first book offeringsAngel Face: The True Story of Student Killer Amanda Knox. In the book’s forward, Ms. Brown lauds Ms. Nadeau’s “diligent pursuit of a story that most of the U.S. media, including the New York Times, badly misread.”

Not so fast. Now that the court’s decision has been overturned, isn’t the The Daily Beast the outlet that misread the evidence?

“Confused by #AmandaKnox?” the website tweeted on the day of the decision—without mentioning the Daily Beast’s possible role in sowing that confusion among its readers.

“The Beast’s @BLNadeau will host a live-chat tomorrrow at 1 p.m. to answer any Q’s.”

Needless to say, the Kercher murder was not a typical story, for the Beast or any other publication. Ms. Nadeau wrote that in Perugia, reporters and bloggers were divided in the eyes of the prosecutors, defendants, and authorities into two groups: the innocentisti, who thought she’d been framed, and the colpevolisti, who were convinced of her guilt. Reporters, she said, were given access to sources accordingly.

Although Ms. Nadeau told Off the Record in an e-mail she considered her reporting objective, it was clear throughout the trial and appeals what group she’d aligned herself with.

In the live chat on the The Daily Beast website, Ms. Nadeau had to face her critics.

“Do you plan on continuing to push the lie that there was mixed blood in the cottage?” asked Bruce Fisher, an innocentisti blogger affiliated with pro-Amanda Knox blog injusticeinperugia.org.

“Push the lie?” Ms. Nadeau responded. “I only report what I find. Do you plan to continue to try to kill the messenger of what is reported in court?”

Although an independent review deemed the prosecution’s DNA evidence sample too small or too contaminated to be used to convict Ms. Knox, The Beast stood by its reporting that she could have done it. The site even reprinted a list of “unanswered questions” for Ms. Knox from the first trial.

“Is there anything you wish you would have said in court during your trial?” Ms. Nadeau asked. “You talked about your vibrator and about how you did not want an assassin’s mask forced on you. But in your final appeal after the closing arguments on Dec. 4, 2010, why didn’t you say the words, ‘I did not kill Meredith Kercher’?”

Due to her seeming affinity for the prosecution’s view of the case, Ms. Nadeau was denied access to the Knox family. She described their presence in Perugia as “a sophisticated public-relations strategy using mass media and the Internet.” Instead, she based her reporting on the Italian records, which led her to depict Amanda as an “angel face” killer.

“Ms. Nadeau is deepy sourced, speaks fluent Italian and attended every key session in the proceedings so it is not at all surprising her perspective would be different from that of many other members of the media,” Andrew Kirk, a spokesperson for The Daily Beast, told Off the Record.

“Those who have scoured the crime scene video, studied the autopsy photos, read the 10,000 page court dossier, talked on and off the record to all the lawyers and prosecution first hand can’t help to be skeptical [of her innocence],” she told Off the Record by e-mail from Rome.

Asked if the judge’s decision, which freed Ms. Knox, made her reconsider her view, she wrote that she had no regrets, and doesn’t think she’s alone in thinking Ms. Knox could well have done it.

“I think that anyone who started covering this story from Perugia in November 2007 maintains a skeptical view, at least privately—whether that is reflected in the dispatches or not,” she wrote.

An updated electronic version of Ms. Nadeau’s book is being released this month, the spokesperson added.

No word on whether the title will acquire an asterisk.

 

Comments

  1. William Scott Morris says:

    Knox is guilty and no PR firm will change that. The public is going to be so pissed off when  they find out they have been manipulated by the lies and distortions of the truth by the pro Knox bunch. Welcome to the world of OJ Simpson and Casey Anthony  Amanda Knox. It was you and Sollcecito who murdered Meredith Kercher. you can run vbut you can’t hide

    1. Anonymous says:

      Its an insult to put Amanda Knox into the same league as OJ and Antony. Anyone with the least bit of intelligence could see she was innocent.  The two evil people connected with the Kercher murder are the murderer, Guede, and the prosecutor, Mignini.  The distorted leaks to the Italian press by Mignini were unbelievable.  Mignini should join Guede in prison for stealing 4 years of Amanda Knox’s life for no reason other than his ego and imaginary satanic plots.

      1. bmull says:

        Was a “satanic plot” introduced as the motive at trial? No.

      2. Anonymous says:

        Googled  “Nadeau” and “satanic” and found 68,100 hits. Here is a sample from page one:

        “Ms. Nadeau herself reported (Angel Face, p. 158) that Mignini wanted to reintroduce the Satanic ritual, but Comodi blocked this …”

      3. Anonymous says:

        The theory prosecutors Giuliano Mignini and Manuela Comodi first put forward for the motive in the murder involved a satanic ritual orgy similar to the charges of belonging to a Satanic sect that Mignini had unsuccessfully leveled at 20 others in the Monster of Florence case.

      4. Jay Bymond says:

        Because the jury was not sequestered, the answer is Yes.  Coupling the civil trial with the criminal also drove the 11/5 statement to be admitted as well.

      5. Max says:

        Leaked to the press. Jury not sequestered. Are you stupid?

    2. Paul Carr says:

      Even prosecutor Mignini himself admits that she wasn’t even in the room to begin with.   As far as the million dollar PR campaign,  how do you control TV, press, and internet for four years on end, and what would it take to bribe Donald Trump if that were possible?  Try reading even one of the dozen books published on this case.  I’ve read six and have no doubt of  her innocence.

    3. WC says:

      total horse crap….please

    4. Kevin Keenan says:

      You’re a douche and  no shrink will never change who you are…you were/are and will always be a DOUCHE

    5. Anonymous says:

      The judges and jurors did change that.  The decision came down that they didn’t commit the crime.  Better not go to Italy or those experts hired by the court will slap you with charges for slander.

    6. guest says:

      I think it’s more likely you and all those who are on your websites are going to find yourself in the middle of massive lawsuits.

  2. Juliette Giannone says:

    I’m so happy she is home with her family finally.  What a nightmare to be convicted of a crime you did not commit.  That investigation was a major f***-up from day one.  They’ll lock up anyone they can out of desperation.  Yeah, it would’ve made an interesting story, if it were true, but Knox and Sollecito didn’t  do it.  Nice try anyway!  Welcome home, Amanda! 

    1. James says:

      Then why did they lie and change thier stories so many times?  How could the victum’s DNA be found on a knife in the boyfriend’s apartment?  He told the police she had been cooking in his apartment and cut her finger (a likely story).  Why did they buy bleach the morning after?  Why did Amanda confess to being in the flat the night of the murder and then blame an innocent man?

      You persist in your fantasy of innocence because its so important for you to believe she is some kind of “Joan of Arc”.  In reality she may be just another “psycho”.  The irrational defense of this women says more about her defenders than it does about Amanda Knox.

    2. James says:

      Then why did they lie and change thier stories so many times?  How could the victum’s DNA be found on a knife in the boyfriend’s apartment?  He told the police she had been cooking in his apartment and cut her finger (a likely story).  Why did they buy bleach the morning after?  Why did Amanda confess to being in the flat the night of the murder and then blame an innocent man?

      You persist in your fantasy of innocence because its so important for you to believe she is some kind of “Joan of Arc”.  In reality she may be just another “psycho”.  The irrational defense of this women says more about her defenders than it does about Amanda Knox.

      1. Anna says:

        Your persistence in clinging to lies and misinformation and disproven “evidence” is what is strange. They did not change their story “so many times.” That’s just no so. The knife was not the murder weapon, and it did not have the victim’s DNA on it. They did not buy bleach. Amanda did not “confess” to being there or “blame” anyone. She was coerced, threatened, and asked of “imagine” what might have happened. The police were the ones who brought up Lamumba’s name after they found the text to him that said “see you later.” I’d like to see how you’d behave under the same circumstances.

      2. James says:

        How do you know any of what you just said is true?  You got it from the “Ft. Knox” PR machine!  Do you really think you know what happened?

      3. Michael says:

        James, exactly! Of all the videos, they (the police) did not record it! Think about that one. The video of the century was not recorded? Why? Yes, I do beleive she (Amanda) was hit by them! Six or twelve interrigation specialist who cares. One would have been enough! Remember the Marithon Man, is it safe (Yes, No, how many times did Dustin Hoffman change his answer)? They were framed. I live here in Germany and nothing to do with the PR machine. To find the answers, offer Rudy two years off his sentence for what really happened. I think the prosecution already did that so that he finger AK and RS.

      4. bmull says:

        Knox and Sollecito had conflicting alibis days before what you call the “tag team” interrogation. The fact that it was not recorded and no attorney was present was already remedied by throwing out that part of the interrogation. What more do you want? Guede did not get any special consideration for implicating Knox and Sollecito. He fast-track sentence reduction was automatic. If anything he’s saying less about their involvement than he knows.

      5. Anonymous says:

        There was no conflict of alibis.  Both  said they spent the night at Sollecito’s.  Cops got Sollecito to say that he didn’t know where Amanda was while he was asleep.   Big deal.

      6. bmull says:

        Nope he never said anything about being asleep. He first said they went to a party. Then he said Knox left between 9pm-1am. Find a primary source that says otherwise.

      7. Max says:

        He is most likely to have done given Prosecutor Mignini’s history for corruption and harassment. The only thing Guede is saying less of is the fact he got cut a deal. It’s patently obvious he did. The Kerchers and Italian people will now live with the eternal shame of having put their trust in Mignini only to see him fail them monstrously. And all that besides, given that Guede is a known liar who changed his story multiple times, no court can reliably expect him to testify to anything with any truth. So, if you’re hoping you’ll hear anything even approximating an explanation that isn’t a bald-faced lie from him again, you’re sadly mistaken.

      8. Kevin Keenan says:

        Yes stupid we do…if there was a videotape of the Knox interrogation and subsequent “confession” the police would release it for all the world to see and it would answer the question of what went on in that interrogation room…end of discussion.
        Answer the question why did the police/prosecution deliberately choose not to videotape Knox and Sollectio’s interrogation?
        Not to mention Knox who at the time barely knew Italian was not even provided with a proper interperter.

      9. Maddy Mappo says:

        clearly the judges of both trials agreed because Knox’s statement was not permitted as evidence against her, Mignini got  it into the trial by the backdoor by trying the slander case at the same time.  The rest of the explanations are very credible and one would have to simply embrace everything the police has said to be doubtful, but these are the same police who did not record 14 hours of interrogation by a tag team on a young woman, and also managed to destroy all of amanda and meredith’s computer data which could have been helpful to Amanda’s case).  This is a prosecutor who had the doctor tell Amanda she was HIV positive in order to elicit info on her sex life which was immediately leaked to the press.

      10. Kevin Keenan says:

        It’s amazing ..you are a idiot who like other guilters repeats the same tired BS over and over like a broken record…the answer is simple….the interrogation was never recorded so I don’t give two  s**ts  how many times you repeat all your lies …show me the interrogation videotape where she confesses and until you do that you can’t talk about “changing stories”
         
        Bleach? another guilter  BS made up story that was proven in court to be false…there was no such thing….the irrational BS of guilters like you says more about how pathetic you guilters are…admitting you’re wrong is the first step in  learning to think rationally again if that’s even possible for you lot.

      11. James says:

        You just proved my point, fool!

      12. marie says:

         What is says, is INNOCENT. Nothing in your first paragraph is even true. The victim’s DNA wasn’t found on the knife. No bleach was bought, and no receipts were found since no bleach was bought. Amanda did not admit to being at the flat that night. And what does this say about her defenders? That we don’t believe anything we see or hear, we aren’t swayed by the stories that seem to titillate a need for the odd behavior it seems that you want to hear, and that you don’t keep up with the current events and that all the things you write about are speculative nonsense, written by bloggers, nothing factual and nothing true.
        Read something current and not the old stories, made up for people who want to be shocked, and remember, the appeal found zero evidence of either, and they have been found INNOCENT, so your points are moot.
        So what are you calling the defenders, that we are psycho, because as a defender, I feel that the people who continually perpetuate these myths, really are the psychos who need to think that the behavior is such that it says guilty. AS for blaming Lumumba, the police mentioned the negroid, (their word), and the only black man she knew was Lumumba. Isn’t there anything to say about the behavior of the police to show up at his door, without any proof, arrest and hold him for 2 weeks? Now, if they would do that to a man with not one shred of evidence, what do you think they would do to Amanda, who barely spoke any Italian, questioned for 5 days without legal reps and what about the fact that they conveniently forgot to tape the interrogations, which is required by Italian law?
        As for the knife, the only DNA was Amanda’s, (check the evidence from the appeal), on the handle and the DNA of rye bread. The knife used had been lain on the pillow, in the locked room and did not match any patterns from any wounds or had any cleaning residue, was picked out of a drawer at Raffaele’s flat, where Amanda cooked for him and randomly picked from among a set of steak knives. Where have your been? The knife was thrown out as evidence, the stories above all were just that, stories and nobody thinks she is a Joan Of Arc. We just don’t think that American’s abroad should be jailed, railroaded and treated to witch trials because she was an American. I am glad she and the Italian boyfriend have been found innocent, anyway so justice was served for these two but Rudy Guede, whose DNA was found along with semen and fingerprints, possibly paroled in 2015, and may have had an accomplice, and since Guede does not admit to being the murderer, and never states that Amanda or Raffaele were there, why aren’t they not investigating him more, or looking for “the other person” involved. You need to read the appeal trial, and not the old stories that have been re-printed since the people who still feel she is guilty will accept the first verdict, of guilt, but won’t accept the appeal verdict of innocent. The same people were involved so, if after all evidence used has been dismissed, which it has been, the innocent verdict is the correct one. Try the site, Injustice in Perugia, for more current and updated information, and the innocence project also took an interest. And independent review of the collection methods and the evidence it self, was deemed to have been “shoddy”, and did not follow international protocols. Therefore, the only two pieces, on being the knife, which did not have any DNA of MK on it, tossed and a bra clasp, that had been tossed around on the floor, shown in the collection video and touched with dirty gloves, put back on the floor to take a photo and had layed 47 days before even collecting the clasp. It, as well, was tossed so, no evidence, innocent. Period.

      13. françois says:

         yes you re right : she’s a liar and has been convicted for slander!!
        american people believe she s innocent only because she’s young, white and pretty

      14. Shawn says:

        Its funny how manginni plays the race card in court now all of the guilters have started making the case about race. The fact is Rudy killed Meredith and yes he happens to be black. How dear the prosecutor say the poor black man is taking the fall. Everyone should be outraged at that statement. Its unbelievable to me that a prosecutor can defend a cold blooded killer in closing arguments. Isn’t it bad enough he helped lower rudys sentence to 16 years.

      15. Shawn says:

        James where have you been? They never bought bleach. There wasn’t blood on the knife. They are both completely innocent. Its amazing to me that so many people still believe all the lies that have been put out there. If people would look at the actual evidence and block out the lies rhetoric gave been fed by the prosecution and gossip journalists. They would see that the case is simply a burglary gone bad. Meredith walked in in Rudy so he raped and killed her. Like amanda said if it gad of been her that came home she would also be dead.

  3. leptis says:

    Morris – I should be careful if I were you – “Knox is guilty”. If I were Amanda Knox, I would sue you for defamation. Presumably, you have some mind-reading equipment to be able to find the truth, then? How else can you know whether she did it or not?

  4. leptis says:

    Morris – I should be careful if I were you – “Knox is guilty”. If I were Amanda Knox, I would sue you for defamation. Presumably, you have some mind-reading equipment to be able to find the truth, then? How else can you know whether she did it or not?

  5. leptis says:

    Morris – I should be careful if I were you – “Knox is guilty”. If I were Amanda Knox, I would sue you for defamation. Presumably, you have some mind-reading equipment to be able to find the truth, then? How else can you know whether she did it or not?

  6. leptis says:

    Morris – I should be careful if I were you – “Knox is guilty”. If I were Amanda Knox, I would sue you for defamation. Presumably, you have some mind-reading equipment to be able to find the truth, then? How else can you know whether she did it or not?

  7. Jennie_bailey says:

    I am so happy that Amanda is home where she belongs.  I have been praying for you Amanda!!

  8. Paul Smyth says:

    The public relations spin but out by Nadeau and The Beast is at considerable variance with the facts. Nadeau was not in court every day by any means. She was on vacation during key parts of the defense presentation. Even on days when she was in court she did not stick around for the defense rebuttal of the prosecution. She was often seen roaming the corridors looking for cameras to stick her face in front of. Mr. Kirk’s suggestion that Nadeau’s work is “deeply sourced” is laughable since one of the defining characteristics of her work is that she doesn’t source anything. When publicly challenged on this point, Nadeau promised to release all of the footnotes she had prepared for her book–but of course she never did. If we had access to her sources we would no doubt find that she relied entirely upon the police and prosecution. There is zero evidence that she even listened to the defense, much less took any of their points seriously. Nadeau’s embarrassing fixation upon Amanda’s sex life betrays an unpleasant sensibility that is at once prurient and puritanical.  

    Too suggest that Amanda Knox might be guilty at this point, is to expose oneself as deeply ignorant or perverse. Knox was always a terrible fit for the crime. There is no motive, no confession, no credible witnesses, and not a single bit of the physical evidence survives scrutiny. Judge Hellmann gave Amanda Knox the strongest exoneration he could under Italian law. He didn’t say that the case against her was “not proven.” He said that she had demonstrated her innocence and “did not commit the crime.”  Within a very short period of time, it will be widely conceded that the case against Amanda Knox was entirely a hoax. The more compelling question will be why anybody found Nadeau’s pernicious nonsense the least bit satisfying.  

    1. Anonymous says:

       Sorry  Paul.  It only lets me register “Liked” once.   A gross understatement …

    2. Michaelsmth says:

      Well said, Paul!  BN
      is a tabloid journalist who has exploited the ordeal of Amanda for fame
      and profit. No one ever heard of Nadeau until two innocent students
      were wrongfully accused. BN took full advantage of their ordeal to make
      a name for herself – opportunism at it’s worst. Most sickening is that
      after covering the case for four years, all BN could produce is a short
      booklet with a title that reveals the true nature of what kind of writer
      she is!

    3. bmull says:

      Motive: Drug-fueled escalation of violence due to a fight between roommates.
      Confession: Conflicting alibis from Knox and Sollecito from DAY ONE, leading Sollecito to retract
      Credible Witnesses: At least two neighbors heard a scream around 11:30. One more heard a disturbance. Can they all be unreliable? Curatolo’s testimony fits perfectly with the most plausible scenario for the murder, so I find it hard to discard. He wouldn’t have been a prosecution witness on multiple occasions if they didn’t think he was credible.
      Forensic evidence: The nature of the injuries is most compatible with a multiple-attacker scenario. Guede’s bloody footprints that go straight out the front door. Knox’s luminol footprints in the hall and in her room. Knox’s desk lamp on the floor. Sollecito’s DNA on the bra clasp (it was there, contaminated or not). Knox’s and Meredith’s DNA mixed in Filomena’s room. The staged break in. The incriminating phone records. Sollecito’s hard drive. Last and most controversially the double DNA knife (unreliable, but certainly very suspicious).

      1. Anonymous says:

         The “double DNA knife” eh?!   This “murder weapon” turned out not to have any blood on it, nor to have been cleaned with bleach (experts on appeal).  So there was no DNA from the victim on it unless it was put there by the investigators.

        Besides, do you really think they would return the murder weapon back to the kitchen drawer?!  Makes no sense.

      2. bmull says:

        It wasn’t the murder weapon. It came into contact with Meredith or her belongings some other way.

      3. Anonymous says:

        I thought you were talking about the knife from RS’s drawer.  The one police keyed on because it “was so clean”  and had been “washed with bleach” to destroy evidence from the murder scene.  You mean they didn’t think it was the murder weapon?

      4. Anonymous says:

        bmull, I have read all your posts now, along with the logical, thoughtful, and rational replies to your conjectures.  Nothing you say holds up to forensic evidence so I can only surmise that you are choosing to hold on to an unsupported position, despite reasoning.   It is admirable to read the many who have tried to address your faulty arguments.

        I can only shake my head and recall  a pit bull I watched, who would not let go of the stick he was holding, even when it was destroying his world.  

        pmull the pit bull… has a ring to it.

      5. Anonymous says:

        “Contact with Meredith?”…. much more likely given circumstances (and lack of ANY other evidence) it happened in one of two places…

        A) in the police evidence room. The cop who collected the knife went directly from Raffaele’s apartment to a room in the police station and met up with others who had just come from another trip to cottage after collecting  more physical items from Meredith’s room and the cottage… all these people met up in the same room, people who had direct contact with both the  items in the cottage and then in the police station… so, Was there any possibility of contamination in that scenario? and the second place contamination could have happened in the chain of custody?

        B ).. THE LAB…. DNA lab never disclosed the records of  tests preceding the one done on the knife “sample”. We do know that a lot of material with Meredith’s DNA was tested in that lab… tests with strong clear results from HER, her clothes and possessions and from her room. And we do not have any record of the blank calibration tests that all labs are supposed to conduct to get a baseline reading with no sample. before succeeding tests. The readings from the test of the alleged sample from the blade is exactly what a blank test with background contamination far beneath test levels would look like with Meredith’s DNA in the lab and not from a clear sample on the knife. this test was done differently from ALL the other other tests…. and the result is exactly what could be expected from cranking up a blank test run beyond the normal parameters and then attempting to interpret it…

        It is likely they honestly thought they had a sample from the blade with DNA in it but actually did not. (or had trace contamination from the evidence room) And yet they still pushed the results till something appeared to show… and that was just boosted contamination level DNA in a lab that had tested a lot of the victim’s DNA…
        All labs must deal with contamination. It is the single biggest problem they all face working with such small samples…. but there is a difference between pico-gram and nano gram sample size… the same difference from something real and wishful thinking. And the statements by and failure to release test logs and baseline readings from the lab speaks volumes about being in denial about standards there.

      6. guest says:

        Here let me help you.

        According to what you have stated:

        Motive –  Pure speculation.

        Confession — Conflicting alibis are not a confession. If anything, they are more proof those making them have been forced or intimidated into doing so. Knox’s retractions have been well explained before. She was placed under duress in an illegal interview with no attorney present. This interview was never recorded. All illegal. As such, neither of these ‘confessions’ were allowed in court. Conclusion: not a confession.

        Credible Witnesses –  No. There was no witness to either’s involvement. Hearing a scream and a disturbance is witness to hearing a scream and a disturbance, not witnessing the identities of two people irrefutably.

        Forensic Evidence –  A scenario remains speculation until evidence fits its theory. Even if you have a scenario and small amounts of evidence (and nothing you have is evidence – it’s confirmation bias, distortion, and ommission of expert conclusion and testimony), you still need witnesses, a weapon, and enough material evidence that fits your scenario to be considered reasonable grounds for conviction. 

        Rudy Guede killed Meredith Kercher. Guede fits all the diagnostic criteria, history, and behavioral patterns of a psychopath. He was a known burglar who carried knives. He broke into her apartment, she came home and surprised him, he stabbed her repeatedly in her throat, raped her, and left her to die while he rifled through her purse and stole her phones. He fits the criminal profile of an opportunistic killer which he confirmed by going on the run to Germany which is considered typical behavior in similar cases. His DNA was found on and in the victim and her belongings in international protocol DNA measurable levels. This is the most credible theory, the only one the evidence fits completely, and the court in Italy halved his sentence after he named Knox and Sollecito despite having, on previous occasions, not naming them at all, or stating he knew neither, or that Knox was not there.

        Rudy Guede will be free to rape and kill again in less than four years.

        To continue to disseminate lies and distortions while you know this proves you are a person incapable of thinking correctly.

      7. bmull says:

        Under the standard of proof you demand for Knox and Sollecito, Guede never would have been convicted. The theory that Guede acted alone does not explain all the evidence. It doesn’t explain the break-in. It doesn’t yield the time of death. The putative motive (“burglary gone horribly wrong”) is not credible. And Guede never said Knox and Sollecito weren’t at the scene of the crime. He said Knox was “not there” [in Knox's bedroom] at the time when Meredith allegedly searched it. Guede says he was in the bathroom when the murder occurred and couldn’t be sure who was there.

      8. Anonymous says:

        bmull -

        Under the standard of proof required by guest, Guede would have been convicted in virtually any court on the planet. The theory that Guede “acted alone” explains all of the real evidence collected in this case. It’s only when you start believing Mignini’s fantasies, such as a much later time of death than evidence indicates, that this theory changes at all. It is a simple case of a crime that sadly happens all over the world all too frequently. There is no need to bring in innocent people who have no motive, have never harmed a soul, have everything to live for and for whom there is no believable evidence of involvement. The only questions that should be left are what types of punishments are due for those in Perugia who perpetrated crimes on two young innocent college students.

      9. Anonymous says:

        all the little guilter trolls so confused…so…”but, but..what about such and such, and such and such, and oh…and more such and such? Unbelievable. Quit wasting people’s time taking up space on the internet. Go drop some acid & have a nice trip, oh wait you are on acid, what else could explain your complete inability for reasoning & fact…and REALITY. Try it sometime you might actually get used to it.

      10. Anonymous says:

        You are an ignorant conspiracy-theorists who obviously knows NOTHING factual about this case.  Everyone who has followed Amanda Knox’s wrongful incarceration knows Rudy Guede is the ONE & ONLY rapist/killer of Meredith.  Just because you want the story to be tantalizing for your own gratification does not mean it is.  Amanda & Raffaele are free & there’s not a damn thing you can do about it.  You need to worry about the real killer possibly being set free in as little as 8 years.

      11. GreyFox says:

        Motive:  Mignini has made up several motives and Massei had to make one up for him too, and now you. 4 years down the road and still no motive . She smoked pot not crack !Rudy had one !
        What confession? She nor Raffeal ever confessed to anything. 39,000 wiretaps done on these two innocent kids with 0 results. Yet they didnt record the interrogation where they slapped her until she was willing to write down there version of how Patrik did this ? Sorry pal once you start slapping people it’s over. Why dont they show the tape ? Crooked prosecuter – thats why?  

        Conflicting alibi : Theyasked Raffeal how he could verify where Amanda was after he fell asleep and he said he couldn’t. Guess you got us on that one. DOH ! 

        Credible witnesses : Now thats funny ! Maybe since he has testified so many times in other cases for Mignini. Curatolo was pulled from jail to say he was high on Heroin the night of the murder and was convicted for selling Heroin at this time. So lets get real. Pot made Amanda kill people but heroin makes Curatolo credible? I dont want to make fun of Nara because I think the mental health issues she has been proven to have are a shame. Bringing this woman who has been proven to be suffering from mental illness is a terribly embarrasing thing the prosecutor has done. I wont comment further on her. 

        Forensic evidence: In regards to injuries, we thank you for your opinion. However like the motive it’s just your opinion. We believe it fits perfect for Rudy to do this. 

        Luminol footprints : ahh yes. The prosecutions forensic expert testified that these were bloody foot prints in one case. Then she didnt test them, then… in the appeal she was caught lying about this by the defense and forced to admit she did 2 test for blood and the results were negative. I encourage every anyone reading to look at these footprints and explain how they look like Knox’s and not one of the other girls that lived there. If they are footprints. I’ve seen better photo’s of big foot’s footprints. There not even in the bedroom (crime scene) . They are from the hallway so what good are they? One day you guilters say she never cleans up and the next day she’s cleaning everything . Which is it? 

        I dont know why Merideth took Amandas lamp. Guess she needed it.
        Contaminated or not. WTF ? If it’s contaminated then hello… The courtroom burst into laughter when they showed the forensic team collecting it. We should retest it ok ? Oh wait , due to police incompetence it was RUINED just like the computor hard drives that were part of Knox’s alibi.
        OOPS! Either way the judge and his experts agreed to dismiss them. Mixed DNA : Umm Filoma’s still alive so who cares. Laura’s is mixed in there too since they all live together !

        Rudy broke in exactly the same way his last 3 break ins occured.How couls Amanda and Raffeal know to to leave his same signature marks. Rock thru 2nd story window, Lawyers office, neighbors, school, used a knife in these also. All proof points to it!

        Police phone records were wrong. They should have done a better job and not relied on the camera across the street. It was off 10 minutes.

        Knife was not the one matching the bloody knife print left on the victims bed. Didnt match the wounds that Rudy made to the victims neck. The judges experts clearly said this was not the knife which is why she was set FREE!  Didnt you pay attention to the appeal ? The Judge threw it out because it was without a doubt not the murder weapon. No DNA match, no blood, no bleach, just starch from rye bread that Amanda admitted to useing for supper.Double DNA lol. Do you guys think we wouldnt call you on that ?

        How come the police and prosecutoe who have been proven to lie in court aren’t suspicious to you? One things for sure… The trial of the century has only begun with Knox being freed! The real show’s about to happen!

      12. Anonymous says:

        Did you take your meds or are you alergic to facts, or are you a common troll, just being your little rascal self?  Or maybe it’s early Alzheimer’s, repeating the same thing over & over & over & over….ad nauseam Aren’t you too just a little sick of the lies after four  years? How is that kool-aid? Too bad you missed Jim Jones, you would’ve been a perfect sheep for him.

    4. Joan James says:

      GREAT, GREAT POST, PAUL!!!!

    5. Anonymous says:

      Paul Smyth,
      Your comment is shameful and disgusting. The only public relations spin concerned with this case is that of the only PR firm involved – Marriott – who work for the Knox camp.

      True, Sollecito and Knox were acquitted – incredible as it may seem. Judge Hellman did state afterwards that Sollecito and Knox could well have been in the bungalow that night – there was simply not enough court evidence to prove this beyond all reasonable doubt. Prosecution will wait for his report before lodging an appeal to the Supreme Court. Legal experts have been puzzled by the judgement – evidence against  Sollecito and Knox is overwhelming.-

      Your comment intentionally and blatantly contorts the facts and truth. I do not believe for one minute you are so naive. Your comment fools noboby.

       

      1. Tim5555 says:

        You’re right. It fools noboby.
         
        Your comment is nothing more than a whole lot of mindlessly stupid and empty bluster and while it might fool noboby, the same is not true for anyone else, and certainly nobody sane.
         
        You are some delusional fool if you believe anything you say has any credence whatsoever or that anyone can’t see exactly through your own intentions and contortion of fact and truth. You are incoherent, mindlessly numbingly idiotic and, given your usual guilter approach of slipping into comments sections days after posts to effectively have the last word, a ridiculously typical coward to boot. 

        The only conclusion anyone of sane and functioning mind can therefore reach is that, past being absolutely spot on in every way otherwise, Paul Smyth’s observations that you are ignorant and perverse are more apt than anyone may possibly have initially realized.
         
        You guilters are laughable in more ways than you know. And you won’t get your over-turn, either. Anyone of sane and correctly functioning mind knows that for an absolute fact too.

  9. Windsor Wilder says:

    At least now we know which writers are kinky.

    1. Anonymous says:

      At least now we know which writers are guest.

  10. WC says:

    It was a simple burglary that went way wrong……if Amanda had been there, she probably would have been killed, too.  The tabloids are out of line and the prosecutor is a nut who should be disbarred, if not serve time in jail himself.  Anti-American sentiment also helped to contribute to lets blame the American pretty girl.  Total nonsense.

  11. Rachael Mc1 says:

    Amanda Knox clearly has been innocent from day one. I won’t rehash the series of improprieties and illegal set-up’s in which the police engaged. They’re well known. From the first pics of Amanda with Raffaele, she looked like a stunned deer in the headlights. That includes the “kissing” shots where he appeared to be calming her shock and comforting her while she remained nearby TO HELP THE POLICE. Anyone with her brain and alleged “cunning” surely would have fled the scene if they were complicit in any way whatsoever. Get real.

    In contrast to Amanda, the victim’s other roommates DID flee the country as soon as they could evacuate. What were they hiding, Ms. Nadeau? I’m sure you can drum up something diabolical when/if you feel the need. Interesting that the so-called forensic experts “fried” Raffaele’s hard drive to destroy his and Amanda’s alibis, isn’t it?

    Notice a strong underlying jealousy angle to the “guilters’ ” diatribes against Amanda? Shes a brilliant girl, very attractive, and will finally have access to some belated pay-back for the crushing financial burden her family has endured, not to mention false imprisonment and emotional agony of 4 years. These*guilter-despite-the-facts* journalists seem share a collective misplaced rage disorder. They evidently achieve their own thrills from drumming up as much blood, gore and sex as possible. Living vicariously, maybe.

    Read the record. It speaks for itself. Stop continuing to ruin a young honor student’s life with the relish of a psychopath on a killing spree. How many of you guilter journalists have bought sandwiches for the homeless as Amanda has? Put aside your pathological envy of her beauty and intelligence and try on a conscience.

    1. UnderKrig says:

      So, which country did Amanda and Meredith’s Italian roommates flee to when they could evacuate? 

      I think it might be you, Rachel and other Amanda Knox supporters, that are spreading the misinformation.

      1. Anonymous says:

        They couldn’t run, so they immediately “lawyered-up.”. Too bad Amanda didn’t do the same.

      2. Disqus says:

        I like how that one utterly insignificant in any event error was the only thing you could refute there. Way to go with that piercing logic and ability to argue, you fool.

  12. Michael White says:

    I think she did it, but it’s not really my call to make. Even the jurors and judge remain divided. There are many bloggers who feel they can divine the truth through the internet; they’re wrong.
    Kudos to the Italian courts: I think they did the right thing in the end.

  13. Anna says:

    Even Barbie Nadeau has been speaking as if she thinks they’re innocent. She should be ashamed of all that stuff she wrote about them.

  14. Anonymous says:

    So glad that someone has noted Ms. Latza Nadeau’s skewed reporting for the record. Having read her material from early in the case as well as her exploitative book (which dubbed Ms. Knox a “Student Killer”), it is plain that she traded her objectivity for early access to medieval prosecutor Giuliano Mignini. 

    Ms. Latza Nadeau played Judith Miller to Mignini’s Scooter Libby.

  15. Heather Hales says:

    Paul Smyth you are so right on I can’t think of a word to say that you did not say perfectly! Thank you! And Barbie, shame on you, you disgrase journalism!

  16. Anonymous says:

    It is fascinating how Amanda Knox’s “PR” team has been most successful in duping DNA scientists, criminologists,  judges,  FBI investigators, etc.  The were even able to pull the wool over the Italian  DNA experts and Judge Hellman.  The better educated and more knowledgeable you are about the case, the more susceptible you are to their mind controlling PR power.

    Fortunately,  people of the stature of Barbie Nadeau,   Nick Pisa, and Nancy Grace cannot be fooled.  They know the real facts, the ones that didn’t come out at trial,  the ones that the global US/Italian gov’t conspiracy has hidden from us.

    Stupid me, I fell for the whole thing after reading the Massei report.  I am so subject to PR suggestion I dream about huge law suits putting an end to the Daily Beast, Daily Mail, Daily … whatever.

  17. Michaelsmth says:

    BN
    is a tabloid journalist who has exploited the ordeal of Amanda for fame
    and profit. No one ever heard of Nadeau until two innocent students
    were wrongfully accused. BN took full advantage of their ordeal to make
    a name for herself – opportunism at it’s worst. Most sickening is that
    after covering the case for four years, all BN could produce is a short
    booklet with a title that reveals the true nature of what kind of writer
    she is!

  18. Jos King says:

    The fact that Barbie Latza Nadeau works for Newsweek shows the level to which this once great magazine has fallen.

    1. Anonymous says:

      She claims to be Newsweek’s  “Rome bureau chief” !!

  19. McJustice says:

    It is really amazing both how often Barbie gets things wrong  factually as well as her inherent double standards on reporting access… for instance being
    critical of the families for cutting out the guilt pushers in the
    press while apparently turning a total blind eye to the status-quo in Perugia as
    well as the rest of Italy; the extreme media consolidation there and its  status as a
    cowed tool of those in power more than most democracies. This is no secret and they rank lower than most Western Democracies for this exact reason. Besides the consolidation of the media into few hands, Italian 
    slander and libel and above all Defamation/Calunnia laws work to poison
    free expression. From local reporters to major papers it is the
    exception rather than the rule to have more neutral and critical
    reporting of people who can arrest and charge you on flimsy pretexts and
    hold your livelihood and future at ransom for years. And Ms. Nadeau worked in that environment alongside the rest of the local authority enablers apparently without batting an eye
    or possibly even being aware of it much… So what is better? to believe that she has always been aware and cynically goes with the flow or is instead blissfully ignorant of the dynamics at work?  Neither of these possibilities speaks well of Newsweek or Daily Beast’s choice of correspondents.

    Note: Even SHE has been targeted… investigated for her coverage of Berlusconi peccadilloes and yet this abuse of her free expression does not seem to have any implications for her coverage of the Kercher case… oh, wait… when you think about it, perhaps that only served to make sure she understands the way things work there….  so a third possibility… fear of consequences… just a little nudge is all it takes for far too many. And who are we to judge? seems to take less to keep journalists in line than it does to coerce statements from 20 year olds…

  20. Bill Harris says:

    Barbie is simply a writer-whore after a story to milk. 

    The standard MO for her genre of trial- room prostitution is to offer an ad hoc balance to cherry-picked ‘facts’ that one declares relevant. 

    The next step is for her to judge these pre-selected facts. Please note that the real judge doesn’t even have this authority; he/she only assesses the value of facts presented by the competing parties.

    Therefore, she’s either too ignorant to understand or too dishonest to reveal that DNA results indicate presence, participation or lacks thereof. What remains, ostensibly, is for the police to find people who match evidence-grade DNA. 

    The magistrate in Trial #2 said she was ‘innocent’  because the DNA that one would expect to find with 99.5% certainty wasn’t present. He did not say, ‘insufficient evidence’; the ’09 magistrate was simply wrong in not giving priority to DNA over the who-dunnit stuff so dear to Barbie’s tiny, black heart.

    Literary sluts such as Barbie predate upon a public that’s misinformed as much as titillated by a good story. Otherwise, they wouldn’t listen, and would not read her trash. 

    Acceptable legal journalism, then–like acceptable anything– depends upon the expertise of the writer. For example, is there any indication that Barbie consulted lawyers as to the competency of the ’09 magistrate, or the mental state of the prosecutor? perhaps she might have bothered to course herself in the procedures of DNA protocol that’s accepted by both Interpol and the FBI, not to mention The World Court, in which Italy serves as a member.

    In brief, Barbie doesn’t belong with TDB. She’s a total disgrace to what otherwise offers excellent news and insightful analysis. So far from boycotting, I urge others to make her vile incompetency
    a news-worthy story in itself. Track down her writing, ridicule her, and make her literary life miserable in every way. This is the least a moral person can do for what she said about Ms Knox: give he a taste of her own hateful screed.

    BH

    1. Anonymous says:

      Thank you, Bill Harris.

    2. riverlady says:

      …and that’s exactly what I’m doing…tracking her down where I can, ridiculing her and trying to make her tabloid hack (I can’t even think of the word “literary” in conjunction with BN) life as miserable as possible.  I will do whatever I can to run her out of the virtual world of journalism.   

  21. TonydelBalzo says:

    When the acquittal verdict was finally read, three wonderful thoughts came to mind.

    First, a wronged young lady would get to go home and live her promising life.

    Second, HarryRag and his annoying cut and paste journalism could finally die.

    Third, the yellow journalist Barbie Nadeau will dry up and blow away.

    Her final fall from grace occurred when she was interviewed following the complete discrediting of the laughable DNA work done by the Italian “scientific” squad.  Nadeau so brilliantly pointed out that the prosecution’s case was 10,400 pages long.  The loss of the DNA evidence was only 400 of those pages.  She proudly pointed out that she still had 10,000 pages of evidence, as if she were part of the prosecution (which she was).

    She in fact, had 10,00 pages of NOTHING.  And the jury agreed.

    Go Away to someplace horrible, Barbie

    1. Kevin Keenan says:

      Exactly Tony I find it laughable that we all kept hearing that the prosecution had a “mountain of evidence” against Knox and Sollecito besides the contested knife with potato starch on the blade and a bra clasp that was handled with dirty gloves picked up and passed around after it was dropped on the floor .
        From those statements one can only wonder why they never presented that “evidence” The answer is that there was no evidence.The knife and the bra clasp was the best so called “evidence” the prosecution had and as we all learned…they had NOTHING.

  22. JC Court says:

    Barbie Nadeau’s reporting on the Knox case helped the prosecution railroad these 2 completely innocent kids.  

  23. TonydelBalzo says:

    When the acquittal verdict was finally read, three wonderful thoughts came to mind.

    First, a wronged young lady would get to go home and live her promising life.

    Second, HarryRag and his annoying cut and paste journalism could finally die.

    Third, the yellow journalist Barbie Nadeau will dry up and blow away.

    Her final fall from grace occurred when she was interviewed following
    the complete discrediting of the laughable DNA work done by the Italian
    “scientific” squad.  Nadeau so brilliantly pointed out that the
    prosecution’s case was 10,400 pages long.  The loss of the DNA evidence
    was only 400 of those pages.  She proudly pointed out that she still had
    10,000 pages of evidence, as if she were part of the prosecution (which
    she was).

    She in fact, had 10,00 pages of NOTHING.  And the jury agreed.

    Go Away to someplace horrible, Barbie

     

  24. 30 says:

    Regrettably Barbie’s handling of this represents flawed journalism. I see little evidence that she checked the accuracy of information received from the prosecutor and police. She also became indistinguishable from the story when she decided to write a book before the case was fully adjudicated. This is also poor journalism because this gave her a financial stake in the outcome. These actions tend to ultimately lower public opinion and trust in journalism. In this day and age, the cable networks have already trashed the notion journalistic objectivity. Some may say objectivity is dead, but I disagree. There is still a spark of life and responsible journalists and citizens should be fanning the spark

    The Daily Beast earns no honors either. They are the ones who published the stories and books. Shame shame. The world needs credible sources of information. Based upon their behavior in this case, one more source is scratched off the list.

    I wonder if the Journalism schools have ceased teaching ethics and sound reporting. I hope not. What I read on twitter fom posters who self identify as journalism and communications students makes me wonder. This episode with Barbie and the Beast should become a case study in how not to report and publish

  25. A Mom says:

    Bravo!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This story puts it right where the blame for ALLLLLLLLLLL the circus act started that caused 3 victims in this case…. and yet the real killer somehow has a soft hand for BN….. The filth of lies that have passed your fingers and your lips, in your blatant, callous reporting, should have you landed in jail. How careless and pitiful, to continue to stain the minds of people of the world. This has now caused me, to NEVER EVER believe one thing of any reporter let alone one from CNN.You should feel shame, I would hope your parents raised you better then this, but that image you reflected as Amanda and Raffaelle is the image you would see of yourself. You are the cold hearted one with the evil eyes and ways. And for goodness sake, get yourself a vibrator, since you are forever fascinated with the thing. Absolutely pitiful………. You laid with dogs of hate sites, now you have fleas just like them.  Even your hissing at the appeals, the families ignoring you and all, what did your mind actually think? They owed you an interview? You have never had the facts straight. As the old saying goes, “it appears ” You have LET your allligator mouth, over ride your hummingbird ass”. Disgusting….. Pitiful…..I wouldn’t let you report on a bag of dog food..

    1. Disqus says:

      I like this post and I like you. Very well said.

      I particularly like the reference to so-called ”Justice for Meredith” sites being nothing more than congregations of filth spewing and venom. Although actual dogs are better, ”dogs of hate” is about the most apt description of them there could be.

      Rabid, irrational, lying scum. Dogs of hate indeed.

  26. Maddy Mappo says:

    Kate Stoeffel I think is far to generous to Ms Nadeau as she struts her stuff about full access and info. However, as pointed out, only those “guilters” who had embraced Prosecutor Mignini from the getco were able to get into those meetings and see those materials, so obviously the fact that those in the prosecutor’s pocket are still skeptical is a pretty specious argument. After all they never asked the hard questions or doubted his theories from the start.

    1. Guest says:

      Evil jealous wannabees.

  27. Maddy Mappo says:

    also the independent experts did not find the evidence “too small or too contaminated” they found the DNA evidence to be the result of contamination. That is a BIG difference. It was not too small, the minute quantity shows it was not directly posited but second hand  transferred there by the unprofessional techs who gathered the evidence or in the lab.  It wasn’t simply questionable evidence, it was garbage purposefully used by the prosecutor to mislead the jury.

    1. Guest says:

      Hopefully the Supreme Court will sort out your “contamination”.

  28. bmull says:

    *Could* have been due to contamination. Not *was* the result of contamination. That is a BIG difference.

    1. Maddy Mappo says:

      you are incorrect,  the dna was found TO BE THE RESULT OF CONTAMINATION. It was always known to be garbage by the prosecutor but kept in the first trial in order to mislead the jury, for that very purpose. Otherwise there never was any case whatsoever except by conjecture.

      1. bmull says:

        Just saying I’m incorrect doesn’t make you right. Quote the relevant part of the C-V report.

      2. Bmullishigh says:

        It’s you that needs to quote and provide proof. you’re the one with the skewed, crazy, bizarre perspective so you get the burden of needing to prove yourself for everything. But you never do anyway. you lie and lie and lie and then you demand others give YOU proof. seriously, there is something wrong with you in your head. You need help, seriously.

      3. Guest says:

        no. that’s one of the crooked features. no. written. judgment. yet. No Supreme Court ruling, either ;) .

  29. bmull says:

    Stop reciting the same falsehoods. The Italian roommates didn’t flee the country. The hard drive was cloned before it was fried, and no data was lost. If Knox is an honor student how come everybody on this board writes better than she does. At the very least it reflects poorly on UW.

    1. Anonymous says:

      Really?  Then why did the prosecution lie and say the hard drives were destroyed?  Withholding evidence, too?

    2. bmull is high again says:

      Wikipedia called. they said they are sorry they banned you for trying to change the Meredith Kercher article all the time and acting like a little b*tch arguing with everyone normal and sane and they want you to come back and get high some more and try get that sentence in again about how Amanda killed Michael Jackson and you know because there was a lamp in the room that she must have flown in on her UFO and put there before she cleared up her moon-dust tracks with the help of Elvis

      you conspiracy freaks are all the same.

      1. Guest says:

        I’d forgotten all about how Amamnda’s lamp was locked inside the murder room…all the better for cleaning up and finding that damned earring!

    3. Guest says:

      ha ha ha ha ha

  30. bmull says:

    You think Hellmann did the right thing by basing his decision on the defendants’ courtroom appearance and a very dubious assessment that there was “no evidence”? And then he couldn’t coherently explain himself to reporters, such that people are questioning whether he even understands criminal law. That’s justice for Meredith Kercher?

    1. Maddy Mappo says:

      no the judge did not mention appearance it was one of the jurors. However, if you were ever on a jury, you would know that the judge directs the jury to take into account the appearance of the persons giving testimony, the jurors are instructed to take in the entirety of the case.  The judge’s judgement concerning the fact there was no material evidence was completely factual and will be further explained in the findings report.

      1. bmull says:

        Hellmann: “two kids barely in their 20s, normal, like so many of today’s youth. Indeed, they were polite, composed”

      2. bmulll_=hahaha says:

        that’s not his assessment, that’s what he said to the press. He didn’t say anything about that in his judgement and the details for it aren’t out yet anyway so you have no idea. you are grasping for straws, you buffoon.

        also what justice for kercher? where is the justice for her that you support the prosecutor who motivated to get her killer’s sentence cut? it’s SOOOO obvious he did. no one needs proof of that. You don’t care about kercher, you liar.

      3. Guest says:

        And what “judgment” are you citing here? The one that has yet to be written, never mind published anywhere?

    2. Anonymous says:

      Dubious assessment of no evidence?  You’re kidding, right? I believe Judge Hellman and his jury did what most of you people who believe they’re guilty did not.  Actually looked at all the evidence.

      1. Bmulllll_is_high_again says:

        He’s high. seriously. bmull goes all over the internet talking his high nonsense. They banned him off wikipedia for trying to edit articles there with his nonsense. or her. whatver.

      2. Guest says:

        No, that was your Candace Dampseat non-Italian-speaking fraud and a few more of your playmates that were kicked off Wiki

      3. Anonymous says:

        I feel your rage and it pleases me deeply.

    3. riverlady says:

      No, bmull, justice for Meredith Kercher is the truth and the truth is that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are innocent just as Judge Hellman and the appeals court jury found them to be.  

  31. bmull says:

    Rather than just saying over and over that “it was a burglary that went way wrong” I wish someone would explain why Guede didn’t just try to talk his way out of it like he did in the past. It would have been fairly easy given that he was an acquaintance.

    1. bmull_=hahaha says:

      it’s like you’re just talking to yourself now. its like you’re desperate and want to just post post post post all your crackpot nonsense hoping someone will read it.

  32. bmull says:

    The only way that Knox can sue for defamation is to relitigate the murder in U.S. civil court. That would certainly be interesting, but she’d never risk it.

    1. bmull_= hahaha says:

      you are a retard. no court in America will ever convict her, let alone NOT award her damages against the likes of Nadeau and co.

      you must be high again

      1. Guest says:

        nah, but you’re still full of shit.

  33. Anonymous says:

    Barbie has every right to advance her cause as a private citizen. She has no right to let her prejudices and financial interests compromise her objectivity as a journalist. Evidently Newsweek and the Daily Beast have parted ways with journalistic ethics.

    1. Guest says:

      What a pitiful “attack”…like being savaged by a dead sheep. Barbie rules.

      1. Anonymous says:

        Haven’t you mouth-breathing buffoons endured enough humiliation already? Give it up already — this case is going to be Exhibit A among examples of botched, prejudicial convictions for generations to come. If the appropriately-named Barbie told us the sun sets in the West I’d run outside to check for myself.

      2. Disqus says:

        Funny how in the overwhelming wave of well-reasoned and formulated argument as to precisely why she not only doesn’t rule in any way and is, indeed, nothing more than some idiot history will consign to the text-book definition of how not to be a reporter, the best you could come up with is a pathetic little squeak of ”Barbie rules”. You’re a little more than pitiful yourself.

      3. Guest says:

        Kiss my arse you lying apologist for murder and framing an innocent for her crimes.

  34. bmull says:

    Absolutely James. Interrogations do not have to be recorded until a person is deemed a suspect. Thus the affected portion of the interrogation was ruled inadmissible. That does not justify ignoring all of Knox’s other statements. And in fact it was Sollecito’s changing stories that first attracted the police’s suspicions. Was he tortured as well?

  35. bmull says:

    Nope. Trying the slander case at the same time exposed the jury to just one additional statement from Knox. Her other, almost identical, incriminating statements would have been seen anyway. There was no 14 hour interrogation. You are just repeating falsehoods. There is no evidence that Mignini told a doctor to tell Amanda she was HIV positive. No doctor would agree to that. What we do know is that parties affiliated with the defense were the ones distributing Knox’s prison diary.

    1. Anonymous says:

      No, a doctor did not do that.  They had a prison guard dress as a doctor to tell her that.

      1. bmull_=hahaha says:

        where’s yours? you never back up anything. just spin out ever more tangential unrelated irrelevant nonsense like it’s self-evidentiary proof of anything. The doctor was placed in the film. if that was incorrect are Lifetime gonna risk a court case from the doctor in the prison at the time?

        There’s your proof. dummy. better than anything you could ever come up with and still logical.

        dummy

      2. Guest says:

        Oh bullshit.

      3. Guest says:

        bullshit

    2. Jay Bymond says:

      That statement was the 1:45am statement.  It was a very critical statement that to this day still convinces people she is guilty.  I’m still at a loss on how the supreme court could rule that admissible.  The law says once you are a suspect you must have an attorney.  If you sign an incriminating statement that was prepared by the police, you are clearly a suspect.

  36. bmull says:

    Mignini said it was a possibility. In an interview with The Sun. Pro-Knox people say The Sun is totally unreliable except when it suits them like in this instance.

  37. Anonymous says:

    Barbie Nadeau is a non-journalist.  She’s a tabloid writer with no ethics.

    1. Guest says:

      Barbie rocks. More power to her typing.

  38. john james says:

    I’ve said it before and I will say it again; just give it up, Ms. Nadeau.  Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito have been acquitted.  When will you get that in your head?   Perhaps now is the time to find yourself a different line of work.

    1. Guest says:

      Give it up you muling and puking inadequates.

      Go Ms Latza Nadeau! Thank you for your honest reporting. Don’t worry about these other folks….they don’t buy newspapers, magazines or books without pictures…..and there’s only a very few of them.

  39. Marie says:

    What is so absolutely remarkable about these comments and this story that have been deemed as “truth” once again, from the fact that every one who drooled at the possibility of the appeal coming back with a verdict of guilt, believed that the Italian legal process would be correct, just as you found the first verdict as factual and set in stone, and who prepared themselves like giddy little schoolboys, peeking into the girls locker room, or slapping each other on the back for “a job well done”.

    I can visualize the party, as you all walked into the “good old boys” pub;   Cheers and chants of…”THIS ROUNDS ON ME, GOOD JOB SUCH GOOD PROOF, THEY DID IT AND THE FACTS PROVED IT, EXCELLENT WORK, I WANT HIM TO BE MY LAWYER, THEM DAMN FILTHY YANKS, THE LITTLE WHORE, FOXY KNOXY DESERVES TO BE LOCKED UP AND THROW AWAY THE KEY”, AND on and on and on…….Light up those stogies one more time, as you celebrate the outcome from the wonderful, exceptionally brilliant Perugian legal system who once again, diligently and with due process, did a little rehashing of the evidence, or in this case, “lack of” to give you all what you wanted, and you put your faith into one more time.

    The system that was such a good system, the people involved would come to the conclusion you just knew and wanted, and no way could the Italian courts be at fault, not at all!
    They were right the first time, their function and work absolutely brilliant and their motives and evidence solid. Even though 6 weeks later, the forensic team returned to try and solidify the insane motive presented by Mignini.

    Hell, Maresca did his job as an advocate for Meredith Kercher, her family and now, his name is so very well known, as the man who cared so deeply and he only asked for what was the total, $2 mil, for his story? Who really knows, since the media has gotten this wrong from day one, along with the talented Prosecutor, Giuliano Mignini. Did he represent the Kerchers all Pro Bono, eh?
    The sickening part of this story lies in the fact that even though the Keystone Cops, the talented forensic team whose work was openly laughed at during the appeal and the talented legal team who were presented the task to find “closure” and justice depending on the continued destruction of two lives who had already lost 3 years worked really well, didn’t it?

    I am sure the religious majority of the Italian and British citizens, probably prayed, yep, surely gathered together forming a chain and as loudly as possible, PRAYED for the continued torment of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. Too bad, for the Italian kid, his sin? Collateral damage and that he fell for the little American POS, or what you all call the “trashy American whore”, Luciferina, Satan’s bride and my favorite, Foxy Knoxy. (c’mon, nobody uses Foxy anymore when describing someone’s looks but then, you all did step back a few decades, possibly centuries)?

    For example, it seemed as if forensic collection was still in it’s infancy, the cops still carried around walkie talkies or those huge bricks they called “walk about phones”, and still used a pen and little spiral notebook to keep the timelines, the facts and the eyewitness accounts in the breast pocket of the polyester, double breasted suits, with vests from Jaque’s Penay. (American joke about an old store, that went from an expensive fashionable store to the joke where J.C. Penny became the name we dubbed, Jaque’s Panay, just a little American humor here).

    These groovy three piece suits, complete with the big flared pants and the zippered pleather, high heeled boots, fashionable and worn, necessary since Europe is so big on designer names, made in China but still…. Afros were even groovy by the “negroid” detectives, (Italian speak, as used by Mignini, and I found so telling here),  that is if they were allowed to be detectives back then. Buy, I must give Mignini props for his attempt at sensitivity stating that Amanda “was blaming the poor black guy”. Laugh out loud funny.

    Nope, the decision would be right, all the players, Mignini, Maresca, Stefanozzi, hell, Barbie Nadeau such a brilliant writer, still rehashing the old stuff regardless of who the words belong to, but, still, selling papers, whenever she uttered a word, you all jumped, clamored to read the “facts”  and who the UK and Italian believers relied on for their daily news, and I use that term very sarcastically. If I am offensive to the Italians or to the residents of the UK, now you see what Anti-”submit your country here” feels, as we Americans have had to listen to for so long. We just forgive it, where some just continue to keep bigotry near and dear to their hears. On this, you can rely.

    Now Barbie, she fits right along side of the shameful American writers, (well, bloggers really), and there is a huge difference between a real true journalist, who writes using research, using eyewitness accounts, police documents, some journalistic instinct and most importantly, facts.; Peter Quennell, Peggy Ganong, both, who have openly “blobbed”, no I got that spelling right, with hateful opinions dredged up from the cries of the same people who accepted the Italian courts first decision as fact. Plagiarizing phrases dredged from other libelous persons, and called reporting.

    Mignini, at that time was considered the 2nd coming and Maresca, who continually kept the hope of the Kerchers, for some perverse reason of gaining “closure”, completes the circle, that allowed the notion that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were guilty of the rape and murder of their daughter. Rudy Guede has been forgotten, and is rarely mentioned so nobody would think any bigotry exists, except towards the American girl.

    They had convinced with the black magic motive, the gut feelings and something about demeanor and blue eyes. I did not know THERE IS A NEW TOOL CALLED A DEMEANOR READER, AND IS IT LIKE THE KINDLE??  I WANT ONE!!   The focus on the search for the killer(s) had been completed, and only they were the criminals who took away a precious life. You all, including the players mentioned above, and there are so many other that I won’t mention or that list would be extremely long, you all believed in that system, the decent and wonderful legal system that would satisfy the story with the real truth, the whole truth and accepted as nothing but the truth, so help you God.

    Well, why is it that when the first verdict of guilt was read, you squealed like little piglets sucking the teats of the media whores, like Barbie Nadeau, PQ, PG, the idiot fraternity drunken kids of TJMK, and PMF, and who celebrated the brilliance of the the verdict handed down by the finest police detectives, prosecutors, panels of experts, scientists and all involved, including the citizens of Italy, the UK and so many other countries who made Amanda Knox an instant celebrity. But now, you bitch and moan that just about everyone knows her name, blames her notoriety on her family’s PR machine, or spin machine. What the hell does that mean anyway? Spin machine?? And condemn her still. Rudy Guede, who is he? OH, just another man who fell under the spell of the witch of Seattle, another trashy city from the horrible country of America. Nope, no Anti-American sentiment shown here.

    But the point is this, you placed your faith, your beliefs, took the word of Perugia Monster Mignini and his merry band of mistake ridden investigators who used tactics straight from an old detective movie as believable and worth your valuable time reading these stories to condemn a 20 year old honor student, with no history of criminal behavior, criminal history overlooked of Guede’s.
    I read, he said he had taken Hash from Meredith’s purse, stole her cell phones, money, fingerprints found in the purse. I also read that Amanda and Raffaele told police, they shared one little “splifff’, much lighter than hash but, hash, because it was the victim’s, also who clubbed and partied with the other room mates, had male friends over, but, all this overlooked, to make Amanda’s actions fit the motive, of sex fueled pervert bringing home a different man, every night.
    Too over the top, you think?
    This repeatedly reported by Peter Quennell who has been questioned for stalking underage girls, inappropriate behavior for an old geezer who you find talented and would never question his word. I heard he’s up for a Noble Peace Prize for his research and for cracking his case, and his sensitivity regarding Guede’s background. And, the American sentiment against Meredith because her mother is from India, another disgusting reported bit of nonsense. By those, you have come to love and believe.

    And if not such a sad error, could be comedic in it’s own way, but here lies the rub….(another old American term since we are using old timey police tactics as evidence), you believed the courts the first time, and put all your faith,  ALL YOUR FAITH,  MORALLY,  RELIGIOUSLY, EVIDENCIARY WITH THAT HARD TO HIDE ANTI-AMERICAN SLANTED BIAS, literally praised Mignini for his work, the police and forensic teams for the excellent performance of duty and diligent discovery in three days, with not one iota of evidence processed, visiting psychics, the comparison of eye color to other convicted murderers, measuring “gut feelings” to other scientific “gut feelings”,  and see if any records were broken regarding the decision made of guilt, so quickly based on the fore mentioned methods. Guiness was standing by, just in case they broke the record for trying, convicting and sentencing in three days. I think OJ still has that one. Just kidding…..

    Why now, is the verdict of INNOCENT being questioned, since you had no problem with the applauded performance, during the first trial, as the enormous amount of mistakes presented, the complicity of Mignini and his unheard of way to present and conduct a trial, for some of you who find it funny and who do not wonder what impact your stupidity and acceptance of his excellent work still affects the “celebrities” you and your non-factual stories created and basically made into those celebrities, so quit your bitching. Seriously.

    Because now, you consider the decision made with the same, if not more thorough and current evidence, unacceptable and continue to harass the families of both, and found INNOCENT, but are not interested in finding the rapist, killer who still walks among you, since Rudy, given rock star treatment was only an accomplice, as decided by your appeal judges. And not the panel of judges, who if not in agreement could lose the precious and prestigious jobs they hold, and the exceptional work of the police, who fired Raffaele’s sister, a honorable policewoman who had nothing but an exemplary record, reflects on how such a system you hold high, actually works.

    And you should accept the job the appeals process did, what they found and why aren’t they re-opening this case so that the Kerchers, can have that closure, everyone wants them to find?
    Why is the competency of the court that you believed to be so positively believable then, not believable now?

    You can’t have it both ways, and I guess, since I have now written a story like most of the reporters for this paper, “The marvelous and fact based stories of the Daily Beast”, considered by everybody as truth, and many to be on the same level of the American equivalent “Enquirer” or “The Star”, I am a reporter. No degree, no need to prove myself as a valid and well written contributor and I haven’t taken any quotes, like Ganong or Quennel or Nadeau do, making stuff up, as well, I will try an work on that.

    So the big question here is this: WHY WAS THE FIRST VERDICT, IN WHICH THE MOTIVE WAS DECIDED BY THE DEAD PSYCHIC, (WHO SAW THAT COMING? , AND WOULDN’T SHE HAVE BEEN REALLY GOOD AS A WITNESS FOR THE APPEAL?), VALID, CONSIDERED AMAZING POLICE WORK AND TAKEN AS GOD’S FACT?
    BUT WHEN THE APPEAL WAS READ, AND AMANDA AND RAFFAELE WERE FOUND INNOCENT, YOU CANNOT ACCEPT THAT GOOD POLICE WORK, GOOD LEGAL WORK AND THE BELIEF THAT AMANDA KNOX AND RAFFAELE SOLLECITO ARE INNOCENT, AS FOUND, AS THE EVIDENCE STATES AND A JURY OF YOUR OWN DECIDED? ZERO EVIDENCE=ZERO CONVICTIONS
    SOMETHING IS WRONG HERE, AND YOUR CONTINUED ABUSE, TORMENT AND SLANDEROUS STATEMENTS ON FACEBOOK, ON THE BLOGS, BY QUENNELL, NADEAU, GANONOG AND THE PRESS AS WELL NEEDS TO CEASE, EITHER ADMIT THAT THAT THEY SCREWED UP AND ACCEPTED THE TRUTH, AND THE VERDICT ON INNOCENT OR JUST SHUT THE HELL UP AND RESIGN TO THE FACT THAT INNOCENT MEANS INNOCENT. CAN’T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS.

    1. Guest says:

      Yes we can have just as we have it until the Supreme Court rules. Just because something very crooked went down to spring them, they’re still guilty as SIN. Peace and true justice for Meredith Kercher.

      1. Max says:

        What went down that was so crooked? How are they guilty?

        You don’t even know what justice is and you certainly don’t care about it for Meredith Kercher. All you care about is conspiracy theories, lies, and being utterly indifferent to the huge amounts of victims this case has created, not least of which is Amanda Knox.

        Don’t reply to people you’re not fit enough to be considered part of the same species.

      2. Still Watching You says:

        You tell me. Berlusconi’s machine or just Papa Sollecito’s wonderful hydro-engineering. Hellmann’s public remarks since have done little to dispel the incongruity of his court’s decision, for crooked it is, indeed. (like ol’ C and V…crooked and unworthy of any country, any court system)

        Amanda is a murdering monster. Finding herself at home under these circumstances could only please someone who doesn’t care for truth or what she’s done. It’s all down hill from here.

        Run, DJ, run!

    2. Anonymous says:

      This case has exposed our “sophisticated” European brethren as provincial misogynists.  It is Mary Shelley’s “Frankenstein” except that the pitchfork wielding villagers are out to destroy the young girl instead of the Monster.

      1. Emii88 says:

        As someone who is British, I’d just like to say that I agree with you completely and there is a huge amount of support for Amanda here. I think you are absolutely right to refer to and call out those shameful fools who have tried to make this an anti-American thing but please rest assured they are not the majority. Most people here weren’t aware of all the facts and there was a lot of spin from three particularly notorious gutter-press publications but the rest, including the highly respected Independent, Guardian and Observer, and others have reported very favourably for Amanda the past few weeks. I’m not sure about previously but I am sure they would have, at the very least, been responsible and circumspect in their conclusions until the trial had finished.
         
        You might be pleased to know, however, that public opinion is fast catching up now that the complete picture is coming out. Very few people here ever looked at it as an American girl killing anyone or even that a British girl had been killed – just that she had been murdered under what they assumed were ‘strange’ circumstances. Not many of them were aware, either, of John Kercher’s involvement with particularly the Daily Mirror and Daily Mail or how that could be extremely problematic in terms of bias.
         
        It is my sincere hope that the Knox family pursue these publications through the court and receive all correct and appropriate damages. I also sincerely hope that Kercher’s association with them, and their extreme and sensationalist reporting will be dealt with as well.
         
        Once again, I’d just like to say there is a lot of support for Amanda here and all those who are reasonable and decent would never be happy with an innocent person being jailed. Only lunatics and people too stupid than to believe lies would think badly of Amanda now that the whole story is coming out. Everyone I know simply didn’t know the facts until her release brought it into the spotlight again and in a way it has been the perfect ending because to go from a conviction to it being over-turned so completely in such a high profile case has piqued a lot of interest now. Not that I’m at all happy Amanda had to endure one second of what she has been through the past four years but as something to point out that has had a knock-on positive effect in it’s own strange way.

        People just didn’t know and these publications failed them and have a lot to answer for. I hope, in time, that you will feel completely vindicated along with Amanda, her family, and everyone else in America who has felt so aggrieved by all the nastiness they’ve seen. We remain, as ever, your good friends.

      2. Emii88 says:

        Sorry, I made a mistake. My previous comment was for >Marie.

      3. Anonymous says:

        Even tabloid readers seem to be coming around to your point of view.  Some pro-AK comments are actually starting to get positive feedback in the Daily Mail!!

        The major “guilter” web sites are here in the US,  and they have a loyal following.  Ironically, they published the Massei report in translation which convinced me that AK and RS were innocent.

      4. guest says:

        Not a bit of it, but it has confirmed that the US has some very vocal, very stupid, very nasty people. Ignorant and embarassing!!!

  40. Rave1955 says:

    What a sad story. Amanda and Rafaele are innocent. BN and her ilk, together with the evil prosecutor have desecrated the honor of Meredith Kercher by using her gruesome death to make  themselves rich and famous. In addition, they made life a living hell for 2 young people whose only fault was wanting to help the police. They already have the murderer and rapist in prison. He was smart enough to know that if he deflected the blame on these two young innocent victim ( I am sure he was nudged in that direction by the prosecution) he would get a lighter sentence.  And why would anyone believe this vile animal?  It just makes no sense to believe him. And shame on the prosecution who are willing to unleash this animal back in society to commit more atrocities. BN and other tabloid, bottom of the barrel journalists are all complicit in the horror they created. 

  41. Guest says:

    Barbie gives it to us straight. Critics are supporters of AK or deeply envious of Barbie’s highly visible success and honesty.

  42. marie says:

     FAITH,MORALLY,RELIGIOUSLY,EVIDENTIARYAND
    WITH THAT SLANTED BIAS, , literally praised Mignini for his work, the
    police and forensic teams for the excellent performance of duty and
    diligent hard work, visiting psychics, the comparison of eye color to
    other convicted murderers, measuring “gut feelings” to other scientific
    “gut feelings”,  and see if any records were broken regarding the
    decision made of guilt, so quickly based on the fore mentioned

    1. Guest says:

      Marie writes out-and-out lies. Mignini never consulted with psychics….arrested one once.  Eye colour? Just making things up!

      Hugs for Meredith. The truth will always be the truth. Amanda doesn’t hold a candle to you. Never will, because she’s a talentless, selfish knuckleheaded, entitled murdering liar. People know it all over the world. So much for Ted Simon. The truth got there first (hey amanda, you ever seen his first interview about you? He knows you’re guillty, too!) Everyone knows, but many are paid to lie for you. Nice, huh? I hope you drop dead with pleasure.

      1. Anonymous says:

        So much rage. So much impotence. So delicious.

        Hugs for Kercher’s dead issue.

        Who cares.

        Mostly Kercher.

        Kercher to play.

        Positions, please.

  43. Joan James says:

    Barbie Latza Nadeau and her mentor, Tina Brown, are moden day witch hunters.  Although Amanda  Knox has been adjuged “perche il fatto non sussite”, translation = “the fact does not exist”, Ms Barbie continues to savage Amanda Knox’ character.  I hope that she and The Beast are sued for slander as it is evident that neither Ms Barbie nor Ms Tina have a conscience or are at all concerned with journalistic integrity…and Mr. Kirk, you wouldn’t know “deeply sourced” if it came up and hit you or Ms Barbie in the mouth.   

    The Daily Beast has aligned itself with the pathological prosecutor, Guiliano Mignini which is where Ms Barbie gets all of her information.  Mignini himself is under indictment for manipulating evidence in another case.   This is another example of prosecutorial corruption and is one of the ultimate examples of a “kangaroo court” created and controlled by Mignini.  Whether Ms Barbie drank Mignini’s kool-aid or is herself a pathological liar is the question here.   She has what can only be considered a very morbid fascination with Amanda.  I don’t know if it she is jealous of her or if it is something even more sinister, but it has gone way out of control and is very scary. 

  44. GreyFox says:

    What about all the lie’s the police/prosecutor told in court. How come Barbie never wanted that big story ? She wasted her time covering up for the Italian police/prosecution. When all is said and done people will remember how she helped a crazy prosecutor who is convinced every case revolves around devil worship and satanic rituals. Helped them put two innocent people in prison for 4 years. And missed the biggest story of (the century) police corruption that has not been seen since the days of WWII. Barbie is an accomplice to it all !

    1. Guest says:

      No police lies, just Amanda and Raffele lies (but mostly…..TaDa! Amanda!)

  45. Anonymous says:

    Barbie Nadeau is one of the media bullies who is willing to ruin the lives of two innocent kids for the sake of a story.  Her vehemence is of such a sustained variety, that one must question what makes her tick.  Is this a personal vendetta against something Amanda Knox represents for her?
     I have long wondered when that lens would turn around and look back at the reporters who have joined with the prosecution in selling out the lives of these kids.  Bravo to you, Ms Stoeffel. May this be the beginning of scrutiny of these slanted reporters.

    1. Guest says:

      The only bullies I’ve seen are the flaming haters who  are paid to….bully. They’re trying to shout down the truth….which is that Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox stabbed Meredith Kercher to death. They even write dsgusting things about the victim and her lovely, grieveing family.   True Justice for Meredith Kercher. No money, no glory for her KILLERS.

  46. Guest says:

    True justice for Meredith Kercher. Google it for the TRUTH. Ignore Amanda’s paid “journalists” and trolls.

    1. Anonymous says:

      You forgot to mention the “mountains of evidence”.   Didn’t you read the TJMK  official members guide?!

  47. Willis says:

    Judy Bachrach is an ugly old cow.

    1. Guest says:

      Trout. Ugly old trout. Tina Brown is everything JB wishes she was. Like successful and very bright.

  48. Guest says:

    Giulia Bongiorno is a mafia lover.

  49. Guest says:

    Justice for Meredith Kercher. Amanda Knox is a killer. Happy, happy Seattle.

  50. Guest says:

    Curt KNOWS she’s guilty. He just doesn’t want YOU to know the truth. Why else would he hire a PR company to write crap all over everywhere denying it and sliming the victim?

  51. Guest says:

    Go Tina! Go Barbie! Go Beast!

  52. Tfox002 says:

    bmull,
     I answered all your questions below. Please let me know if your confused about anything else as I will be glad to clear it up for you my freind !!

    I will say the 50 question statement you made is a lot like Mignini did to the defense with all these lies. He didnt figure they would actualy get around to discredit every single piece like they did. Took me awhile too.

    Guilters must now try to pretend it never happened and there is still some evidence left in this mountain of Mignini poo!

  53. Jos King says:

    I’m so please and delighted to see guilters posting as guests. It’s very wise of you. “Be afraid. Be very afraid.” You do know that you’ve lost this completely now, and that you also were WRONG… probably not for the first time, either. ;-}

  54. Anonymous says:

    Barbie Latza Nadeau is not a journalist.  She has no journalistic integrity…actually, no integrity at all,  She has BIG issues, i.e., a very strange, bizarre and sinister obsession with Amanda Knox (along with her guilter buddies Harry Rag, Peter Quenell and Peggy Ganong).  She wrote a book, “Angel Face”, which she presented as a “true crime” depiction.  This book is full of lies, innuendo and misinformation, much of which comes from the pathological  mind of the prosecutor, Guiliano Mignini and the balance from the also disturbed mind of Ms Barbie.   Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are completely, utterly and entirely innocent of the murder of Meredith Kercher…and Ms Barbie knows it, but to give it up would be to kill her cash cow.  She has made a ton of $ and put her ugly face on TV from the tragedy of this horrific crime and the fact that her scenario of Amanda’s guilt is far more exciting and salable than the truth of Amanda’s innocence.

    Shame on  you Barbie…how do you sleep at night…or do you?  Whatever, you’re disgusting!

  55. Anonymous says:

    now you are just making stuff up. He never mentioned a party on the night of the ist. There was a party THE NIGHT BEFORE… on Halloween… no party the night of the 1st. they have alibis on the 1st till well after Meredith time of death as determined by correct stomach contents analysis. 
    A person who had asked Raffaele for a lift to a bus station at midnight came earlier and spoke directly to Amanda at Raffaele’s. and there are activity recoreds on Raffaele’s laptop that show it was being directly used till after the time of death and there are furether usage files in the operationg system that the police bumbling did not erase

  56. Anonymous says:

    Ms. Nadeau is getting the publicity she deserves however she is still due a barrage of rotten vegetables. 

  57. anastasia says:

    I think you have to be deaf, dumb and blind not to suspect that Knox may have killed Meredith.  Her guilt found by Jury No. 1 and her innocence found by Jury No. 2 (that in and of itself should tell you something)  has nothing to do with what we all believe in our living rooms, and frankly, there is plenty to wonder about in this case –  plenty of reasons for believing that a murderer is walking free in Seattle.    

    1. Anonymous says:

      I am neither deaf, dumb nor blind, but I have to believe that YOU may be if after all the “evidence” that AK and RS killed MK has been proven to be non-existent, you still persist in posting the above.  PLEASE…as you are so brilliantly knowledgeable about this case, explain to me, in complete scientific detail, how 3 people, in a very small space, could brutally and bloodily kill a 4th and only 1 person’s forensic material is found all over the room and in and on the victim???  

      Rudy Guede killed Meredith Kercher all by himself.  I don’t care if Barbie Nadeau can speak Swahili.  She obviously knows nothing about the case, her book is pure fiction and she is not, nor was she ever, a journalist.  She’s a not very bright, publicity seeking, make-a-buck-anyway-I-can idiot.   Unfortunately, she and her tabloid hacker cohorts  are partially responsible for two innocent kids being imprisoned for 4 years.  I hope Nadeau gets sued and has to pay back all the evil $ she made targeting innocent people.   

  58. Michelle Moore says:

    If Barbie Nadeau only reports what she “finds”, then why the:”“Is there anything you wish you would have said in court during your trial?” Ms. Nadeau asked. “You talked about your vibrator and about how you did not want an assassin’s mask forced on you. But in your final appeal after the closing arguments on Dec. 4, 2010, why didn’t you say the words, ‘I did not kill Meredith Kercher’?””
    When Barbie is asked how she feels now she responds with “I think that anyone who started covering this story from Perugia in November 2007 maintains a skeptical view, at least privately—whether that is reflected in the dispatches or not,” not EVERYONE in her exact position feel that way at all. 
    Lastly, Barbie, I know for a fact was not in court as much as she claims. I know for fact.
    I think that “The Daily Beast” is at large part responsible for the complete BS that it reported via Barbie Nadeau. I think the Knox/Sollecito families should sue the paper-and Barbie. No integrity.