Amanda Knox ‘will be seeking compensation for wrongful imprisonment’


wenn5733253

Last Friday, Amanda Knox’s second murder conviction was overturned in Italy. She is officially free, although one could argue that even if the conviction had been held up by the Italian Supreme Court, Knox would still be a free woman because it was always doubtful that the American authorities would extradite her. So, what’s next for Amanda Knox? Well, according to Knox’s lawyer, Amanda is maybe going to sue for financial compensation for the four years she spent in prison.

Amanda Knox may have one final fight left in her. Just days after she and her former boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito were acquitted of murder charges, the 27-year-old is said to be heading back to Italy. Knox’s lawyers confirmed to reporters that she will be headed to a Lo Stivale court to seek compensation for the four years she spent in prison for the murder of her roommate Meredith Kercher in 2007.

“She will be seeking compensation for wrongful imprisonment,” Carlo Dalla Vedova, her attorney, told the Telegraph.

Meanwhile, Sollecito’s father, Francesco, told media outlets that deciding upon a settlement amount has been no easy feat for the two twentysomethings.

“You could hardly quantify a compensation figure, it has been such an awful business,” he explained. “We were pilloried.”

[From E! News]

That’s interesting. I don’t blame people for seeking financial compensation when a grave injustice has been done, but in Knox’s case in particular, didn’t she get a big book deal? Didn’t she sell the film rights to her story? I’m sure her lawyers have been paid and I’m sure Amanda has money to live on. But I guess she wants to prove, one last time, that she was wrongfully convicted. I wonder if Meredith Kercher’s family will seek some kind of compensation or further explanation for what happened as well.

Meanwhile, Raffaele Sollecito (Knox’s former boyfriend and co-defendant) was acquitted too, and he has released several statements about his ordeal. He told People Magazine that he was grateful that the “nightmare” was finally over. He said that when he heard the news about the Supreme Court’s ruling, he celebrated with his family. And he says Knox called him that night. Here’s part of his statement to People:

“At times, I realize that I do not yet feel a complete sense of freedom. I was trapped in this for so long that now I won’t be able to switch back to how my life was before. Part of me will never be the same. Part of me is destroyed.”

“I am obviously very happy for Amanda, since I knew from the start that she had nothing to with it and I believed in her innocence. But now it is time to move on. I no longer want this tragedy to tie us together. I no longer want to be known as ‘Amanda Knox’s former Italian boyfriend.’ I want to be known for something else than being connected by the prosecutors to a gruesome murder in which I had no part. I prefer to be known as Raffaele Sollecito, the guy who faced all of this and came through at the other end.”

“I still have a hard time in doing even the most basic things, like smiling. I have to remind myself of how to even smile. People will say to me: ‘Hey! Cheer up! It’s all over! Smile!’ but for me it hasn’t really sunken in.”

[From People]

I do feel sorry for him. I believe in his innocence way more than I believe in anyone else’s. And I’m glad that he no longer has to live with this cloud over his head.

wenn22144990

Photos courtesy of WENN, Getty.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

210 Responses to “Amanda Knox ‘will be seeking compensation for wrongful imprisonment’”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Hautie says:

    Sorry. But if I had lived that nightmare. I would never step foot back in Italy.

    I am not about to go back to a country that spent that much time and money… trying to keep me in prison… for the rest of my life. Nope. Not going to happen.

    • Mrs. Wellen Melon says:

      Not even to secure a significant amount of money? To face down fears and put the past to rest?

      Amanda and Rafaele, I hope they write you a very, very large check.

      • denisemich says:

        +1! Also, she has to give the money or some of it to her parents. Her parents cashed in everything to get her out of this mess.

      • MyCatLoves TV says:

        I would want to seek compensation if I had spent four of my prime working and/or education years in a prison in a foreign country for a crime I did not commit. (And I completely believe she is/was innocent.) Part of me would be scared but like you said….face the fear and stand tall. I’d want to take back my dignity from those who sought to stomp me down. Not that any dollar amount would be “worth it,” of course, but there is a lot to be said for having the strength to prove you were not broken by an experience. (And I also like the idea of repaying the parents if she has not already done so from whatever other deals she made.)

    • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

      Me, neither, Hautie. I’m not judging her for doing it – whatever she needs to do to move on, but that was my first reaction. No way would I ever be able to go there again.

    • Stef Leppard says:

      They may have been speaking figuratively. I don’t think she’s actually going back to Italy. Her lawyers there will represent her.

      • deehunny says:

        this. with their lack of double jeopardy and my ignorance of their court system, who knows if they would decide to prosecute her again and keep her without bail.

    • Audrey says:

      Well I’m pretty sure that, despite her book, she’s still in debt due to legal fees. This is a way to get rid of that debt. Especially for her parents who have put themselves into debt.

      I feel awful for the Kercher family though. they’ve been dragged through all of this and told lies by authorities. I hope they can put this behind them and accept that their daughter was killed by one man.

      • FLORC says:

        Yes to all of this

        On top of legal fees her case was tried in the public by the prosecution. The PR firm had to also be brought in to have anything close to a fair trial.
        Sadly, facts are often seen as the lesser to gossip and the prosecution knew this.

        The level of debt is massive.

    • blue marie says:

      Yeah, if it were me, I think I’d distance myself from this as quickly as I could.

    • TessD says:

      I see it as a symbol of her taking her good name back. She should seek compensation and she should go anywhere she wants/needs to demonstrate that the value of individual and her reputation is just as valuable as any government.

      • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

        Yes, I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with her doing it. I just wouldn’t be able to, I don’t think. You never know what you could or couldn’t do until the time comes, I guess, but sitting here today, I don’t think the need to gain retribution would overcome my fear.

    • original kay says:

      agreed. not for any money in the world would I ever travel again, let alone to the country that imprisoned me.

      • word says:

        By not ever wanting to travel again, who is winning? You are imprisoning yourself by allowing fear to win. Also, I don’t think she actually has to be present in Italy to sue them. Her lawyers can do it. She can even do testimony through video.

      • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

        People react to things differently. I don’t think there’s a “right” way to recover from a trauma. It might make you feel like you were winning something to go back, but it might just prolong the traumatic experience and intensify the fear for someone else.

    • mytbean says:

      Me neither – I’d be done with Italy forever. But, I’m all for her getting compensation for four years of life wasted in jail while they sorted out their mess of a system. She paid with something that she can never get back and HECK YES they owe her something for that! I’ll never understand how that’s even a question in wrongful prosecution cases.

  2. Estella says:

    I never realized how much these two resembled one another. Which feeds the assumption that there is something wrong with both of them. What if they actually did participate in Meredith’s murder? Even though they’ve both been cleared of guilt, many people still believe they were involved. If so, it is a ballsy move to ask for compensation.

    • embertine says:

      They look alike so they must have killed Meredith? Are people really so desperate to cast this woman as the villain that they will use this as the latest excuse? Now I’ve heard everything.

      • HipHipHorray says:

        She now needs to tell the truth. Its not about her anymore, despite what she may think. Meredith is still dead and there are still no answers. Meredith matters more than this horrible woman.

      • embertine says:

        I agree that the victim should matter the most. I even agree that Knox comes across as unlikeable. But that does not make her a murderer, despite the court of public opinion that seems to want to pillory her no matter what she does.

        The evidence against her was a total shambles, and the Italian police had convicted her to the press before poor Meredith was even cold. Regardless of your feelings about her personally, the facts of the case do not indict Knox.

      • Liv says:

        I highly doubt that both of them are completely innocent. The whole story was so weird, they definitely played a part in it.

      • Gretchen says:

        @ HipHipHorray
        There is an answer. The killer’s name is Rudy Guede, and he’s been given a significantly reduced sentence for changing his story and implicating Knox and Sollecito.

      • Lissanne says:

        Gretchen:
        Rudy was given a reduced sentence because he elected to take what’s called a “fast track” trial. This option was open to Knox and Sollecito as well.

    • Lulu says:

      “I never realized how much these two resembled one another.” makes you conclude “that there is something wrong with both of them”. I just don’t get that?

      Disliking the logic behind loads of the comments about how “to behave” when faced this or that therefore she must be guilty.

    • msw says:

      WTF? Seriously?

      I realized as soon as I saw Amanda’s face pop up on the front page, I shouldn’t click the link, but I did. The comments on these Knox articles can be such a trainwreck. I am seriously frightened by this witch hunt and hope some of you are NEVER on a jury. I am amazed, and completely baffled, that so many people are rooting for this person’s downfall and are convinced she participated in a brutal rape and murder, either because they never bothered educating themselves about the shameful and deliberate way they were railroaded and set up by the police, or because they just don’t like Amanda.

      This case is so upsetting. It is laden with sexism, corruption, and xenophobia. Stop waving your pitchfork around and be concerned about the real issue here–two innocent people were sent to prison for four years to help a corrupt prosecutor and an awful police detective (who is currently under investigation for witness intimidation in another case) save face, while the real, confirmed, convicted killer is getting out of prison soon (and is already on day release). They picked Amanda because they thought she didn’t act appropriately overcome with emotion, not bothering to consider that her culture was not an emotive one like their own. They railroaded her until she gave a compliant confession, which unfortunately implicated an innocent person, at their suggestion. And why not? Blaming them took some of the heat off Rudy Guede, who got a substantially lightened jail sentence for implicating Knox and Solliceto at the prosecution’s suggestion, making them look slightly less incompetent in the eyes of public opinion for failing to arrest him during his crime spree prior to the murder. The deal they struck with him is allowing a murderer, rapist and thief to go free. It was a slam dunk, open and shut case for the prosecution to go after Guede – his DNA was everywhere (in, on and around Meredith, who he savagely killed just to get her wallet).

      The prosecution mishandled evidence and contaminated it ON VIDEO, and told bald-faced lies in court about meeting international standards for evidence collection when they COMPLETELY f-ed it up. Amanda and Raffaele did not get off on a technicality. They were innocent- you can’t clean up your own DNA at a crime scene and leave someone else’s. CCTV cameras show Guede and not them. Their witness claiming to see them in the streets was a professional witness who the prosecution frequently called on to prop up their cases. They lied about how it took three people to kill meredith, saying that because she was athletic, she should have been able to overpower a tall, also athletic man as he choked, stabbed and raped her. The DNA on the “double DNA” knife turned out to not even be blood, and the knife didn’t fit the wounds on Meredith’s body. And worst of all, they lied to the Kerechers because it was convenient to their case, especially with Meredith’s dad being employed with the British press. This is so stupidly, painfully obviously a set up to make the theory fit the evidence rather than the other way around, with a real criminal already serving time in jail. Never underestimate the power of the press on public opinion.

      I hope Amanda sues and wins. Both the prosecutor and the detective are damn criminals and belong in prison themselves.

      • Loulou says:

        Yes at everything written, MSW. Cannot believe some of the stupid things people have been commenting on here. Do people really think you can determine guilt or innocence by looking at someone.

      • lisa says:

        + infinity

      • The Other Katherine says:

        Bravo, msw. The entire prosecution was a shocking, blatant miscarriage of justice.

        Whether or not Amanda Knox is “unlikeable” or “cold” or “fishy” or whatever is 100% beside the point. If you want your society to be considered civilized, questions of guilt and innocence must be decided on the available facts. In this case, the factual evidence was so hopelessly contaminated by the police and prosecutors that the entire case should have been thrown out regardless of possible guilt.

        If people who truly believe that Knox was guilty (in the face of what evidence actually remained after the police effed it up, none of which pointed to Knox’s guilt) are upset that she “got off”, they should direct their anger at the incompetent and corrupt police and prosecutors, whose malfeasance guaranteed that the conviction ultimately could not possibly stand.

      • embertine says:

        Agreed Loulou – it’s been shown over and over that people are very bad at even being able to distinguish one person from another in lineups, let alone being able to tell if someone is guilty. I think it’s a kind of just world fallacy – in a good and perfect world, monsters would look like monsters so the fact that I don’t like this woman means she’s guilty.

        It’s also said in every single thread about this case that flattened affect is not a sign of sociopathy; sociopaths tend to be glibly charming, at least to those who don’t know them well. The fact that Knox comes across as a little off is actually evidence against her being the kind of person that could manipulate two men into raping and killing her friend for her own satisfaction.

        I hope all of you who think that they “just know” that she’s guilty don’t assume every person with Asperger’s that you meet is a murderer.

      • Kitten says:

        Preach!!!

      • Illyra says:

        Great post.

      • Macey says:

        amen to this post!

        I can not believe how many ppl have and continue to judge her based on her appearance or ‘rumored” actions which have been greatly exaggerated over time. I’ve read so many comments from ppl basically convicting her based on this or that but have absolutely NOTHING to do with the case and evidence in hand.

        I always thought she was innocent based on what Ive read. I hope she does get something for going thru all this. Im sure her legal team will do the work in Italy. I can’t see her going back there for anything.

      • DarkSparkle says:

        thank you for this.

      • Jackson says:

        Excellent post, msw! Thank you for taking the time to write it. I hope at least a few people read it and educate themselves.

      • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

        I don’t pretend to know much about this case. I had a lot happening while it was going on, so I wasn’t focusing on it. I don’t know whether or not she’s guilty. But I agree with msw that a lot of the comments seem to accuse her of being guilty because she “seems creepy” or “something’s off ” about her and that’s just wrong.

      • mayamae says:

        @embertine, I agree with what your saying. But even if Amanda were proven a psychopath/sociopath, a certain percentage of the public is one or the other, and the majority aren’t killers.

        As a general comment, I sympathize with the grief the Kercher’s feel over Meredith’s death, but at some point their willful ignorance becomes unacceptable, and there are no excuses for them failing to educate themselves on the facts.

      • DottieDot says:

        Add the up vote on these comments! There are just times that I want to up vote some of these comments instead of comment!

      • mytbean says:

        uh oh… you wrote more than three lines and didn’t pack it with loud dramatic video and swishy graphics so you lost 75% of the readers before facts were presented. Meh. Doesn’t matter. Facts are irrelevant when you can just SEE how guilty she looks. Burn her at the stake!!

    • fairyvexed says:

      What if they did? They didn’t. The end. People really love the idea of attacking Knox for being a slut, though Sollecito was her first boyfriend.

      • Adele Dazeem says:

        Sollecito was not her first boyfriend (although I believe Amanda was Sollecito’s first girlfriend but I could be mistaken on that point).

        Amanda has said she had had seven lovers/boyfriends up to and including Sollecito. The only reason we know this is because the Italian prosecutors/police disgustingly lied and told her that she had HIV and she needed to produce a list of all her sexual partners so they could tell them to get tested. She told them she had 4 lovers prior to moving to Italy and 3 (including Sollecito) since arriving in Italy. Someone in the police department then proceeded to leak this incredibly private information to the media, thus perpetuating the prosecutors’ story of the sex-crazed slutty murderess Amanda Knox. It was only after they had released this information that they had the decency to go back to Amanda and tell her there was a “mistake” with her blood test and she didn’t have HIV at all.

        How many lovers a normal, healthy 20-year-old woman had was no one’s business. Shame on them.

    • fairyvexed says:

      What if? What if…the moon were made of cheese? What if dogs pooped chocolate frosting?

      • Kori says:

        that would make cleaning up their messes much easier. :) But my dog poops on everything way less than the police did on everything about this case.

    • JenniferJustice says:

      Yes, the facts of the case do indeed indict Knox. There was/is plenty of evidence to convict her and Sollicito. People don’t want to beleive a young pretty American girl could be responsible for such a heinous crime, but young pretty girls can be sociopaths too. The police and lab’s handling of some of the evidence was brought into question as it is in every criminal trial that has blood, DNA, and other samples that could possibly get contanimated. That doesn’t mean the samples WERE contaminated – it was the same old defense ploy to raise the level of any reasonable doubt. The evidence is: More than one person killed Meredith (she had no defensive wounds, but was stabbed repeatedly while standing and dressed – which means someone held her while another stabbed her; Meredith was moved (dragged) from her bedroom to a guestroom after the murder, Meredith’s bra clasp has Sollecito’s DNA on the hooks, the knife recovered at Sollecito’s aparment contained Knox’s DNA as well as Merdith’s, Knox’s and Sollecito’s bloody foot prints leading from Meredith’s room down the hall and out the front door, Knox’s DNA mixed with Meredith’s blood in the room she was dragged to where the burglary was staged, this was an inside job made to look like a break-in (the window was proven to be broken after the ransacking and luminol revealed the presence of Merdeith’s blood on the floor showing conclusively that whomever tracked it in had sone so after she was dead, No one called police for some time after supposedly finding Meredith dead, Amanda’s lies regarding Meredith having a habit of locking her bedroom door, all to prevent discovery of the body, Knox and Sollecito have contradicted eachother’s alibi’s from the beginning, Sollecito’s withdrawn support for Knox’s alibit claiming he lied at her request, which is when Knox changed her story, saying she was at a cottage and falsely accused a innocent man of committing the crime, and so much more.

      Read the trial transcripts from the first trial. They are on-line and have been converted to English. I can’t for the life of me, understand why American’s defend Amanda Knox. She was invovled. She did this. She’s out walking around free and living her life with so much American support for her. It has nothing to do with Knox being promiscuous. Who cares about that? The evidence points to Amanda. She is a sociopath. We’ll never know exactly how it happened or why, but it happened and she was part of it. This case has always been about protecting cute little Amanda. Why? Because she is American? It has never been about Meredith and what the evidence clearly points to. Why?

      • embertine says:

        I’m not American and I don’t find her especially pretty, so my assessment that the police screwed up badly and that she is probably innocent must be based on something else. Like the evidence perhaps.

      • fairyvexed says:

        Wow. EVery last thing you said came straight from the tabloids and the obsessives who claim there’s a Satanic conspiracy. I don’t think you missed a single bogus lie.

        DO tell us your sources, because the only thing you got right was Knox’s name.

        I ESPECIALLY love the accusation about the bra clasp, because the bra clasp wasn’t found till FORTY FIVE DAYS after the murder, and it was handled (on video!) by crime scene technicians who had visibly bloody gloves. EVEN then it didn’t have enough DNA on it to indict anybody.

        Impressive. Every last single thing you said was a complete and utter lie. That’s amazing.

      • Maren says:

        THANK YOU! I could not agree more. People support her without having read any of the transcripts or reviewing her initial statements to the police. Amanda Knox was involved to some capacity, and I remain shocked at how the Italians bungled the case such that she was released.

      • JenniferJustice says:

        Fairyvexed – No, they aren’t lies and I didn’t get any of it from tabloids. I got it from debates and court transcripts. Yes, the blood on the bra clasp was called into question, and they don’t know if the knife they found was the weapon used on Mereditch, but how does that negate everything? You negate your own stance with overreactive bias toward Knox being innocent.

        I frequent this site daily. I have never seen your name on here before today. Are you part of the Knox PR team, a family friend or what, because you’ve attacked every single post implying Knox is or might be guilty. You can’t explain away all of the evidence. You can pick at one or two things, but in it’s entirety, the evidence still points to Knox being involved.

        I am mad at the prosecutor. His lack of professionalism and personal vendettas against others in his past has cast doubt on his credibility. He, along with the police, bungled enough to ruin their case. That doesn’t mean she’s innocent.

        The breakin was staged – there is no doubt about that. Meredith was held while someone stabbed her. Knox and her boyfriend’s footprints made with Mereditch’s blood were in the hallway, Mereditch’s room, the room she was dragged too, and out to the front door. There has been nothing to show those peices of evidence were mishandled. Knox was there.

        If she is so innocent, why won’t she, to this day, take a lie detector test by anybody other than who her family hired?

      • Faith says:

        Not only that but they both lied to the police repeatedly there stories have changed. People have been convicted for far less evidence. They also didn’t call the police first, they called family members it wasn’t until the postal police turned up with Meredith’s stolen phone Knox and Solliceto said they had rang the police however there was no proof that they did. There was even evidence of faked break in. The appeal were they were found innocent ignored evidence on their third appeal they were found guilty! If Knox was not American and had not had a PR team (questionable in itself to have a PR team before a lawyer) no one would either care or think she was innocent.

      • The Other Katherine says:

        Well, one reason Knox might not want to take a lie detector test is that they are garbage? Their accuracy rates are far too poor for something that can affect the entire course of someone’s life, they are far too easily affected by examiner bias, and the fact that U.S. government agencies still use them for certain positions requiring security clearance is a scandal in and of itself. Plenty of people have gotten flagged up as lying on answers where they were provably telling the truth, and plenty of people have passed with flying colors on answers where they were provably lying. No innocent person should ever, ever submit themselves to a polygraph — it can’t prove your innocence, and it can make you look like a liar even when you’re not.

    • atrain says:

      We are friends with a husband and wife that look like they could be brother and sister, they’re so similar. I’m calling Interpol right now – these guys are probably the real killers.

  3. Flahoola says:

    It breaks my heart that this whole shambles of a trial was never about the victim. Poor Meredith and her long suffering family. It became a media circus about ‘foxy knoxy’, how shallow can you get? There was a brutal murder on a young innocent girl and that’s what grabbed headlines. Guilty or not, there’s something fishy about Amanda Knox.

    • Belle Epoch says:

      This makes me sick. I don’t believe she is completely innocent, or that she has ever told all she knows. Meredith’s family is very poor, the mother is ill, and their daughter is dead. The Knox family is rich, could afford to spend MILLIONS OF DOLLARS on PR (apart from lawyers), plus she received more millions for book and TV tie-ins (and I bet there will be more). Their daughter is healthy and free. It’s hard to feel like justice was done for the Kercher family and Knox’s alleged “best friend.” Is it really “wrongful imprisonment” if her innocence was always in doubt and she was in fact convicted? It seems indecent to continue to make money grabs. Knox is lucky to be free and clear. Be grateful and go away.

      • msw says:

        The Knox family is not rich, they are middle class. And the Kerchers are not poor, they are also middle class. Knox never said Meredith was her best friend, she said they were friends. And knox is not lucky she was railroaded by an insane prosecutor and a corrupt detective. It makes me sick to see people willing to crucify someone based on a hunch or proven faulty information. Amanda’s few TV appearances and her book have probably not paid even most of their bills.

      • fairyvexed says:

        It’s amazing how apparently all you have to do to convince women that another woman committed a murder was call her a slut, lie about her in those satisfying sexist ways that people love, and sexualize a soccer nickname she had when she was …..eight.

      • noway says:

        “The Knox family is rich,” this statement really bothers me, because it is just not true. The Knox family lives in a middle class neighborhood in a mid-priced city in the US. Her parents happen to be divorced, and both parents mortgaged both their homes and cashed in retirement plans to cover her legal expenses including the poor PR firm, as still a lot of people seem to really be against her.

        Also, it is “wrongful imprisonment” because the higher court decided that she was not guilty of killing Meredith. In fact they had the option of letting the case go on by allowing it to go back to a lower court, but they ended the case. Not sure why people are so willing to believe a police, that has been accused of wrong doing on other cases, a prosecutor who has also been accused of wrong doing in other cases, but not the higher court. Keep in mind two courts said guilty- two courts said innocent and the last one that said innocent was the highest court.

        The good news since you have decided this is just a rich versus poor scenario, which it obviously is not, Knox can only get one year compensation, because her conviction for false accusations was upheld for a three year imprisonment, and she was in jail for four years, but Rafael can get all four year’s compensation.

    • Courtney says:

      She’s shallow because her soccer nickname at 8 years old was Foxy Noxy?

    • kcarp says:

      I say fine sue get compensation. Then give to Merediths family or how about a charity for young girls abroad needing guidance or legal representation.

      • SamiHami says:

        Or how about she keeps it, since she was wrongfully imprisoned for a murder she didn’t commit? She is under no moral obligation to give away any money she recovers in a lawsuit.

        I feel horrible for the Kircher family; it must be incredibly devastating to lose a child, especially in such a violent manner. And I feel awful for the Knox and Sollecito families, who went through hell for years because of these wrongful convictions.

      • Kitten says:

        Thank you, SamiHami.

        To add to what you said, why should Amanda be held responsible for compensating the family of a victim of a crime she didn’t commit?

        I mean, it’s not like these two were childhood friends–they were roomates and casual friends at best. Not only that, but Meredith’s family is still convinced that Amanda murdered their daughter. If anything, giving them money could be seen as an admission of guilt on Amanda’s part.

        Add to that the fact that Amanda’s entire family is broke after all the lawyer’s fees, I think she and her family have every right to keep that money.

        But I hope that Meredith’s family can finally get some much-needed peace and time to heal. This had undoubtedly been a prolonged nightmare for them.

      • kcarp says:

        The publicist hired by Knox family has completely saturated the media with their version. People who say they know the facts are just repeating what they have heard over and over. Amanda’s family wasn’t too broke to hire PR people.

        Do I know if she did anything? Nope no clue. Do I think she stabbed her, no.

        You do realize that there are numerous people in jail here in America in prison on way less evidence? The biggest problem was the shady prosecutor. The case lost all credibility.

      • Macey says:

        she has every right to keep every cent. Considering SHE is the one who was put thru this ordeal for years in addition to serving time for a crime she didnt commit. I dont think anyone should be telling her what she should do with any money she may receive.

      • Lou says:

        kcarp, yes, there are people in US jails who have been convicted on no evidence. They should be released and compensated too. That doesn’t mean Amanda’s guilty.

        It scares me that some of you would rather believe a corrupt town police force than the highest court in Italy.

      • Lissanne says:

        kcarp: Why do you keep referring to the “shady prosecutor”? It looked to me like the accusation that he was shady was just part of the PR effort.

      • Adele Dazeem says:

        Why on earth should she give any compensation money she receives to the Kerchers or set up a legal counsel charity? She can do whatever the hell she wants to with her money. My bet is she is more than likely having to still pay off legal fees, PR fees, and wanting to give money and some financial freedom to all her family and friends who donated money to help set her free.

        Even if she wanted to give some money to the Kerchers, people would interpret that as some kind of admission of guilt so she is much better off not giving them any.

        If the Kerchers want compensation from the Italian justice system for this ludicrous investigation, let them go about that on their own.

    • Nicolette says:

      Not convinced she’s innocent. There’s just always been something about her to me too.

      • fairyvexed says:

        “Something about her”? DO tell. BEcause that ‘something’ was created by the prosecutor because he knew people love to blame slutty women for horrible things, even when they’re not sluts. And it seems women are the most eager to do that kind of stuff to other women.

      • Kitten says:

        SIGH.
        I need to avoid these threads.
        Luckily, I’m too busy weeping for mankind to be infuriated.

        Also, THIS is why too many people are falsely imprisoned.

      • Dani says:

        There’s always been ‘something’ about a lot of people to me. That doesn’t make them a murderer.

      • Tammy says:

        I am not sure whether she is innocent or guilty and no one but Amanda would know that. Her defense team was brilliant in attacking the case against her and she was acquitted. Just like there are quite a few people sitting in prison that are innocent of the crimes they have been convicted of, there are guilty people walking the streets that have been acquitted.

      • noway says:

        Tammy her defense team was not brilliant. She was in jail for 4 years for murder with a very poor circumstantial case.

      • JenniferJustice says:

        For the love of God, get over the “People want to persecute Amanda for being slutty.” No, we don’t. I want her prosecuted for a murder she was very much involved in. I have no idea about her sexual proclivities and I couldn’t care less. It is entirely beside the point. The evidence has always pointed to her involvement. She lied through her teeth from the beginning. There is hard evidence that proves she was there and at the least, assisted – at most, was the ring-leader for reasons we’ll never know, because the girl is a sociopath, so she will carry her deed to the grave. But make no mistake, she is guilty…of what exactly I don’t know, but she is guilty on some level and she got away with it. I think she got away with it because she was slutty and everybody stuck up for it and and her right to, like some kind of feminist view about her sexuality justifies anything she might have done regarding the murder. Are you kidding me? I know tons of “sluts” as you call them and I don’t agree with their lifestyle, but I wouldn’t suspect them of murder or any other violent crime. Now if their blood and other DNA were found at the scene of a murder and they repeadedly lied about where they were, what they found, the victim’s habits, and falsley accused an innocent man they later admitted to falsly accusing – yeah, I’m going to suspect the woman was involved – not because I already know she’s a slut, but because that’s who the evidence is clearly pointing to.

      • fairyvexed says:

        @JenniferJustice…..still waiting for those sources, even though you keep regurgitating the prosecutor’s lies. What are your sources?

      • Tiffany :) says:

        The evidence hasn’t pointed to her involvement. A knife they said had blood on it was tested after the trial and was found to have rye bread on it, not blood. There is video of the evidence collection in the bathroom, where the techs are shown taking 1 swab, and using it in multiple areas of the bathroom, contaminating the sample.

      • Tammy says:

        @noway… Amanda Knox is a free woman, right? Her legal team WAS indeed brilliant. They planted enough doubt about the evidence in the appeal that we have people on here ignoring that there was plenty of evidence to convict her.

      • littlestar says:

        I read somewhere online last year that some people theorized that Knox likely has some form of autism, which explains why her behaviour doesn’t seem “normal” to most people. It actually makes a lot of sense, to me anyway.

        And also, some people are just WEIRD and AWKWARD, and that doesn’t make them murderers.

      • JenniferJustice says:

        Fairyvex, I told you my sources up top. You keep addressing my posts in particular because you’re threatened that I actually have facts you can’t explain away. You’re beiing intentionally offensive with your choice of words – “regurgitating” “lies” etc. You can try to bully people into submission all you want, but don’t intimidate me in the least. If anything, you’re acting like any other bully – belligerant and uber aggressive. Save it! You aren’t changing my mind and I’m going to post my opinion no matter how much you try to stop me or discredit me. I have never read anything from the prosecutor. I work for a attorneys and judges and we are all in agreement that Knox was there and she was involved. You have yet to undermine the peices of evidence that nobody else including Knox’s defense team were able to and you aren’t able to force people to align with you on your stance, so save your aggression and attacks for somebody who’ll cave to them.

      • msw says:

        Jennifer, if you think she’s guilty and you don’t know what of, you clearly can’t substantiate her guilt.

        As for your claim that you don’t care about her behavior, and follow it up with a series of contradictions, and blame it on feminists shaming the so called slut shamers, ugh.

      • Faith says:

        Msm- She was convicted twice for the crime! The appeal she was found innocent did not look at the evidence.

      • Tiffany :) says:

        “Her legal team WAS indeed brilliant. They planted enough doubt about the evidence”

        No, Knox’s legal team wasn’t needed to “plant” doubt about the evidence. All that was needed was a video of the evidence collection, which showed how unprofessional the evidence collection was. They were contaminating the very evidence they were later going to test.

        You can’t blame a lack of faith in the evidence on shenanigans by Knox’s legal team. You can blame that on the investigation itself.

      • msw says:

        Faith, she was also cleared twice, so what exactly is your point? I am amazed she was found guilty twice, after the farce of the first trial was exposed. Why on earth would you believe the corrupted local police force’s investigation instead of the independent forensic experts?

      • Darya née Dara says:

        @Jennifer, I don’t even know where to start with your ‘ring-leader’ comment. A ring-leader for what exactly? Are you suggesting that a 20-year old girl who was away from home for the first time in her life and had been in Italy less than two months decided to brutally murder a roommate she had known for only a few weeks just for the fun of it? That she was so diabolical and cunning that she somehow convinced a casual acquaintance of her neighbors along her boyfriend of exactly 7 days to lend a hand in her murderous plan and then do their best to stage the crime-scene to look like a rape/burglary? Really?

    • Kiki04 says:

      Agreed. I still don’t think she’s innocent, just because a court says she is doesn’t mean it’s true (*cough OJ cough*). If she gets any money out of all of this, I hope it’s just something more that Meredith’s family can take when they sue her for wrongful death of their daughter.

      Plus, for someone who says she wants to put this all behind her, she sure is on TV every chance she gets……if this was me I’d never go on camera.

      • mayamae says:

        @Kiki, I don’t know if you live in the US, but I do. Amanda Knox is not on TV every chance she gets.

        “if this was me I’d never go on camera” – That’s great for YOU. Let’s hope you are never falsely accused and falsely imprisoned in a foreign country. But if you are, and you have the courage to just disappear rather than set the record straight, even though people (like you) persist in believing you’re guilty – well you’re a better person than me.

      • Lou says:

        Kiki, she went on camera to help pay her parents back for the debt they incurred trying to save her. You might not have done it, but I sure would have. I wouldn’t want my parents losing everything to save me, I’d help them out whereever I could.

        But I guess that would just prove I was an evil murderer.

      • Darya née Dara says:

        @Kiki, I live in the US – in the same city Amanda and her family live in, and I can count on one hand (with a few fingers to spare) the number of times I’ve seen her on television. When she first returned to the states, the press here covered her return live and none of them caught a glimpse of her, she got off the plane and went into hiding. She certainly did not parade herself in front of any of the many, many cameras and reporters that were waiting at the airport and at her parent’s house.

        Since then, she’s appeared a few times on national news broadcasts (usually as the legal process reached a new milestone), no doubt for some compensation to defray the monumental legal bills. On a scale of zero to a Kardashian, she’s at maybe a 1.

      • Adele Dazeem says:

        Well, @Kiki, if the Kerchers do as you wish and sue Amanda for the wrongful death of their daughter, then Amanda has every right to sue them for slander.

    • msw says:

      Agreed. They turned this horrible thing into a circus. It must be torture for Meredith’s family. I can only imagine how hard this is for them, and I can’t even blame them for their belief in Amanda’s guilt, since they were told from the beginning they knew Amanda was guilty. I hope that now it’s over, they can get some peace, and hopefully some clarity once they have had some space.

      • Lissanne says:

        The Kerchers did not decide Knox and Sollecito were guilty because the police told them so. They hired their own attorney, Franchesco Maresca, who interpreted the evidence for them and represented their interests throughout all of the trials. The Kerchers are quite clear about what they believe.

      • msw says:

        The lawyer could only go with the intel that was provided, which was faulty. Everyone (including me) thought Amanda was guilty prior to the appeal, when the independent analysis of items such as the double DNA knife were presented. But no one in their right mind would conclude guilt based on evidence which was thrown out for being contaminated or completely inconclusive after the first trial. The Kerchers are overcome with grief and have never had a chance to experience normal bereavement, so I give them a pass. Their lawyer, and others who believe the misproven data from the first trial while ignoring the independent analysis from the appeal, not so much.

  4. Betti says:

    Of course she is and actually it should only be for 3 years – her guilty verdict for the slander case against the bar owner was upheld and she got a year for that.

    I always had more sympathy for him – i always got the silly boy in love/deer in headlights vibes.

  5. Birdie says:

    Poor family of Meredith Kercher.

  6. embertine says:

    Wait, wait, let’s see if I can get it right… *clears throat*

    Amanda Knox didn’t react in the exact way I think people should based on my many years of watching episodes of CSI! Also she did cartwheels except that she didn’t! And she got a book deal, which makes her a murderer along with everyone else who’s ever written a book! And she doesn’t cry enough so she’s most likely a carnivorous lizard person!

    Is that about it?

    • janetdr says:

      Yep.

    • The Other Pinky says:

      Oh sarcasm, lolest! Seriously though, didn’t her DNA show up in two different tests conducted on different parts of the murder weapon? Tests that were conducted months apart by different labs. And then why is her DNA mixed with Merediths in the bathroom. There were four people losing that bathroom regularly, why aren’t their DNA mixed with Merediths in there? And then didn’t the convicted guy put her in the scene. And the experts have said that its incredibly unusual for innocent person to make up an elaborate story implicating another person. Mentioning another person sure but making up a narrative is just strange. And even if she wasn’t treated like a delicate snowflake during interrogation because oh they yelled at her, she is hardly the first and millions of people manage to get through it without implicating innocent people.

      I can’t say I know what happened but I do think Amanda knows more than she has claimed in the past?

      • msw says:

        First of all, you can’t clean your own DNA and not anyone else’s. If Amanda or Raffaele were there, they would have had their DNA profiles in Meredith’s room. Raffaele’s DNA was on the bra clasp after contamination was shown on video – along with other people who also weren’t there during the murder. That alone tells the story, and everything else is just nonsense, but let’s review the nonsense anyway.

        Please read about compliant confessions. They are real. The investigators manipulated her into telling them what they wanted to hear. As for the bathrooms, there were 2, not everyone shared them.–obviously Amanda’s DNA was in her own bathroom. The murder weapon was not actually the murder weapon, according to the independent analysis done in the appeal (the first analysis claiming the so called “double DNA knife” was the weapon was done by the prosecution). The knife didn’t fit the wounds, and the DNA was low profile and turned out to not even be a match of a human, let alone Meredith’s blood. I read in the court documents (not the media reports), the same people arguing the DNA was Meredith’s also said it was DNA that came specifically from her neck, did you know that? Because apparently DNA profiles are different in different parts of your body. That is the level of competence of the prosecution.

      • embertine says:

        Nope – see msw’s excellent post above for an explanation of how the police screwed up the DNA evidence.

        I think it’s very easy for those of us who have not been through something similar to police her behaviour. I have no idea how I would react if my friend was murdered, I was hauled in for it and yelled at for 12 hours by police officers who were clearly aiming to pin the crime on me no matter what the evidence. I have no idea, and I suspect neither do you. Maybe I would grasp at straws in my desperation to come up with a name that would make them leave me alone.

        Again, I don’t like the woman but that doesn’t make her a murderer.

      • fairyvexed says:

        I can tell who your sources are by the claims you’re making. You really need to stop reading the nastier tabloids.

        In fact, the murder weapon was never found. The DNA amounts found were so small that they fell under the criminal standard demanded by the European Union, which means any DNA found was the sort of thing you’d get when people share a house. Meredith and Amanda shared a bathroom. Your claim that ‘four other people shared it” makes no sense. In fact, DNA tests found exactly the OPPOSITE of what you’re claiming.

        Forced confessions are real and they lead to horrible injustices and wrongful convictions. Knox was interrogated for many hours without an interpreter or food or water and she was slapped. In fact, it’s common for fake confessions to be detailed and convincing because usually the people inducing the confession feed the confessor information. Knox was quite young and naive at the time of the interrogation so it’s actually not surprising at all. The Italian police acted horribly and unprofessionally.

        One has to look no further than pictures and videos of the crime scene “technicians” to see how horribly they botched the case. There are pictures of these guys wearing bloody gloves and dirty booties wandering around from room to room without changing either gloves of booties, even standing outside on the balcony in booties and gloves.

        As for the actual murderer, he got a light sentence the more people he implicated.

        Guiliano Mignini is a prosecutor who sees Satan everywhere and also hates being questioned. He has sued no fewer than twelve people for libel during just this one case along, including people who merely repeated information from the court transcripts. He has a history of doing this. When Douglas Preston said things he didn’t like about the Monster of Florence case—which Mignini also screwed up to the point that the Monster probably is still free——Mignini threatened to arrest him as the Monster, despite the fact that when the first murder took place, Preston was living at home in America as a sixteen-year-old boy.

        Mignini has a horrible view of women and he obviously leaped at the chance to trash an attractive young girl like Knox. When the DNA results came back, they exonerated Knox and Sollecito but he couldn’t bear to admit he was wrong. He’s done that in the past.

      • noway says:

        In 90 days the court will release its reasoning for the complete not-guilty end this case now decision. The only thing I know for sure is that the high court had all the information, and doubt very seriously anyone on here has read and comprehends all of it. It just dumbfounds me how many people will believe their gut about Knox- because of some interviews and the Daily Mail and other tabloid fodder, but not even wait to see why the court thought to exonerate them completely and end this.

      • Lady D says:

        Amanda is deceptive and dishonest. She lied again and again.

    • Crumpet says:

      Don’t forget her nickname in school was ‘foxy noxy’. And now apparently her family is uber rich.

      Where did I leave my judgy face? Oh, here it is!

      • Cheryl says:

        Thank you for making me laugh. The irrationality of many of us in the peanut gallery is staggering.

  7. Renee28 says:

    I’ve always believed she was guilty or at the very least knew what really happened. Something is just off with her.

    • Katie says:

      I was about to ask if I was the only person who felt she is very insincere. I don’t know if she’s is or is not guilty but there is something no quite right.

    • Valois says:

      Well, she seems to show signs of Asperger or some sort of social disorder. It’s not surprising that something seems “off” with her.

    • fairyvexed says:

      Did you come to that theory before or after the prosecutor spent months calling Knox a slut and a satanist?

      • JenniferJustice says:

        I never read her being called a satanist so that’s new to me. I have heard her called a slut many times, and I really don’t care. I do care that she was there and she knows what happened. As horrible an influence on the masses the prosecutor was, the PR team Knox’s family hired did a much better job influencing the public to beleive everybody just hates a pretty young girl who enjoys sex. That PR team is why so many Americans believe Knox is innocent. But she isn’t. Funny, her family and PR team would only ever allow her to do a lie detector test by persons hired by the family. I would love to see her tested by one of the FBI’s polygraph examiners. She would not pass.

      • fairyvexed says:

        And yet, Jennifer Justice, you still don’t provide your sources, even though what you say flatly contradicts the actual evidence.

        OH, and polygraphs are junk science. They’re useless and they’re prone to error, much like the Italian police who “investigated” this case.

        What are your sources?

      • Kitten says:

        “That PR team is why so many Americans believe Knox is innocent.”

        More likely the actual evidence (or lack thereof), and the transcripts themselves is why many of us think she’s innocent.

      • Renee28 says:

        @fairyvexed
        It’s called reading about the case on legitimate news site. I’m not sure why you think you’re the only one who has any insight on the case. And based on the number of comments you’ve posted; you really are hellbent on defending her. It’s an article on a gossip site. Why are you so worked up?

      • noway says:

        @Renee28, but no one here has seen all the evidence, witnesses, testimony etc. Some may have read legitimate transcripts, but transcripts don’t show the whole story especially since it was translated. However, the higher court did and vacated the guilty verdict with no possibility to continue. In addition they made the possibility for compensation which is part of the Italian judicial system. I think people should wait to read their reasoning as I am sure the high court had its reasons too. I know this is a gossip site, but I find it odd that people seem so willing to not trust the judicial system, but trust the police and prosecutors. Aren’t they part of the system too? Then their only reasoning is she looks guilty. That I find disturbing.

      • JenniferJustice says:

        I named my sources up top – chronicled professional debates and the trial transcripts themselves. I told you, too, that I work for the courts. I sat in on a mock trial for this.

        The adamance of your stance is irrational considering you do not know any of the people involved personally. You too, have only read what you know about the case and yet you consider yourself to be so much more the expert than any other news reader? You weren’t there either.

        Stop trolling me already. I’m flattered you’re so up in arms about my posts but you’re becoming way creepier than people think Amanda is. Thank goodness you don’t know where any of us live, or I’d be tempted to get a restraining order because you are one emotionally unstable fan.

      • Lou says:

        “I never read her being called a satanist so that’s new to me.”

        Jennifer, that was one of the major storylines pushed by the Italian cops. If you missed that, then you’ve likely missed most of the case.

      • Lissanne says:

        Knox was never called a satanist by the Italian police, nor by the prosecutor. Never. Lumumba’s attorney did call her a “she-devil” though, for falsly accusing his client.

  8. Tig says:

    She’s been cleared. As you pointed out, she had a book deal and sold the rights to her story. No expert on Italian justice system, but if this is a civil matter that involves suing the Italian authorities, wouldn’t they also be entitled to defend said suit? Why would she want to subject herself to that possibility?

    And to second the observation made above- the poor victim’s family- they have been living this roller coaster as well.

  9. kai says:

    this case still confuses me…did she or didnt she?why would she?why was she jailed?WHAT???????

  10. Mia4S says:

    She needs to shut up and go away. While I believe this is the correct decision she was a more than legitimate suspect. Sometimes bad things happen, the legal system has run its course. She’s got money from her book/film, now go away and live in anonymity. That’s what she wanted right? Hmmm, we will see.

    • Brittney B says:

      I don’t think she’ll ever really get true anonymity… and she apparently doesn’t have any money left from the book/film, because it all went toward lawyer fees. Could be untrue, but that’s how her family frames it.

      • Green Girl says:

        Agreed, Brittney. To add: Don’t forget her parents were out a LOT of money while supporting her in jail (flew out to see her in Italy and so on), and I think her dad got laid off at some point during the trial.

        I just wonder what she’ll do for a career for the rest of her life. I am sure there will always be interest in her and the trial, but how does that translate to paying the bills every month?

  11. Esmom says:

    I don’t know, I think being able to finally walk away from such an ordeal is “compensation” enough. I can see why it would be tempting to sue for damages but it seems like closing the book on the whole sordid mess would be a good thing.

    • Lou says:

      Being able to walk away won’t pay her many bills. I don’t begrudge wrongfully convicted people asking for compensation. Their lives will be affected by their false convictions. Employment is affected, their families are often out of pocket… closing the book is ideal, but there’s nothing wrong with applying for compensation. We recently had a wrongfully convicted murderer here apply for compensation. So many people still think he’s guilty, so he’ll need the money.

  12. Rhiley says:

    I am in the camp of I don’t think she is a murderer, but I also think that she knows more about that night than she telling us. I think in a very short amount of time she experimented with a lot of different thing- drugs, alcohol, sex- all in a foreign country, a different culture, and at a very young age. I think she trusted some bad people and naively invited them into her life. Plus, I agree that she is all kinds of nuts for wanting to go back and try to get money for being wrongfully convicted.

    • fairyvexed says:

      Her parents bankrupted themselves freeing her. The rumors are that she did the TV deal to help dig tem out of debt.

  13. bettyrose says:

    Wow Rafael is gorgeous. I’ve always felt worse for him because Italy is his home. And the cruel twist of luck to meet Amanda one week earlier. If she’d left immediately following the murder, would police have looked at him at all?

  14. Sisi says:

    Is there precedent in Italy of suing for damages for wrongful imprisonment?

  15. Melain says:

    I’m surprised to see she will start a new lawsuit. I get it, but In her interviews and in her book she said all she wanted was a quiet life out of the public eye. She said she wanted nothing more to do with courts or drama. She also said no one owed her anything. Hmmm…

    • JenniferJustice says:

      It was in her best interest to appear quiet and humble. In reality, she wants attention. This isn’t the last we’ve heard or seen of Amanda. She will do interviews, movies, books, anything for a moment in the limelight and a few bucks. She didn’t have the decency to lay low when she got home, so why would she now – now that she’s being viewed as innocent due to the Italian courts dropping the case.

      I’m waiting for the reasoning of the courts in determining not to persue. I suspec it’s not because they beleive she is innocent, but more because they don’t have enough strong hard evidence to guarantee a guilty verdict so why waste time and money?

      • The Other Katherine says:

        If she is in fact innocent, why would “laying low” be the “decent” thing to do? If I was accused of and wrongfully convicted for a murder I did not commit, in a case that involved severe contamination of evidence and prosecutorial corruption, I would be shouting my story from every media platform I could find.

      • JenniferJustice says:

        and now it’s “vomit”. You are predictable. Wrong, but predictable.

  16. funcakes says:

    Seems like everyone has forgotten the murder victim in all this. Where’s her book and movie?
    If Amanda didn’t have the looks of a Cover Girl model would anyone cover this story at all?

    • Brittney B says:

      Beyond the media bias, Amanda herself should do more to stop that. If she’s truly innocent, I get that this was a long and awful trauma… but all her statements always revolve around her. When she does bring up Meredith, it’s about Amanda wanting to visit her grave, or Amanda wanting to make peace with the family. If I were her, I’d be mentioning Meredith constantly. Even if it’s just a PR move, she shouldn’t be crying tears of happiness without expressing sympathy for Meredith’s family.

      Maybe something like…

      “I’m so thankful that my long nightmare is finally over and I have my life and freedom back, but Meredith will never get a second chance to enjoy her life, and her family’s nightmare will never be over as long as she’s gone.”

      Just… something. Some kind of sympathy. Some kind of selflessness. She had it bad, but Meredith had it far, far worse.

      • JenniferJustice says:

        Bittney, you’re right and the reason she doesn’t express more sympathy for Meredith and concern for the Kercher family is the only viable reason there is – she doesn’t think like that. She is self-absorbed. It doesn’t occur to her to feel for anybody else…just like every other sociopath.

      • msw says:

        She has said stuff like that. I don’t get people like you commenting on this story when you don’t know what you’re talking about. You say what she should have done differently… and oh hey, she did it already.

    • Dani says:

      You’re right – how dare she be a pretty young woman during this murder trial? That is just SO inconsiderate of her. Like what??? It’s her face what is she supposed to do wear a bag over her head??

      • mayamae says:

        Exactly. Meredith was a beautiful young woman herself. Some would argue that the only reason the case is sensationalized is due to the beauty of the victim.

    • Christin says:

      Even if they were not best buddies, what would it hurt to express more genuine sympathy for Meredith, as suggested above? She is the one who has no voice in this.

      • mayamae says:

        I’ve read many previous statements from Amanda expressing sympathy for Meredith. Meredith’s family continues the witch hunt and I don’t understand why Amanda needs to continue to address that family. Amanda’s brief relationship with Meredith makes excessive sympathy sound disingenuous.

        Meredith has a voice through her family, and they’ve yet to stop talking. They have every right to write a book and/or make a movie. That’s their decision to make.

    • jwoolman says:

      She does not have the looks of a Cover Girl model. She is not ugly, but she looks like a very average young woman of her age. I don’t know where the idea started that she was getting sympathy because she was so pretty and attractive. She looks like most of the kids in college classes I taught and like most of my fellow students when I was in college.

  17. Brittney B says:

    Not sure if this is true, but her family has said before that ALL the money from her book and movie rights was used to pay the lawyers… and they still owed money after that. I mean, four years of international travel and lengthy trials must have cost millions.

    That said, I thought her libel conviction (for accusing the Congolese bar owner) was upheld, and it carries a three-year sentence. Regardless of whether it was coerced, she was sentenced and got credit for “time served”. In that case, she only spent one “wrongful” year in jail… not four.

    • fairyvexed says:

      She was convicted of murder initially, and it was under that sentencing that she served those four years. Her sentence for murder was concurrent.

      • Tammy says:

        I think you’re missing the point here fairyvexed. Amanda Knox did commit a crime when she falsely accused a Congolese bar owner, who spent weeks in prison before she recanted. He was truly innocent, the damage she did cannot be undone. She still owes him money on the lawsuit he brought against her and she is going to turn around and sue for wrongful imprisonment?

      • fairyvexed says:

        No, YOU’RE missing the point. She was subjected to an abusive interrogation and they fed her the name and the ‘facts’ that they wanted her to parrot. She shouldn’t have been convicted at all.

      • Brittney B says:

        fairyvexed, I addressed that already when I said “regardless of whether it was coerced”.

        As a result of this latest trial, her murder conviction was overturned BUT her libel conviction was upheld. The judge then directly sentenced her to a three-year term for that conviction, but she got credit for time served. I know why she served them initially — for murder and for libel — but they were retroactively applied to libel alone.

        Whether she should have been convicted for libel or not, she was.

        Legally speaking, in Italy, Amanda’s lawyer cannot claim “wrongful imprisonment” for the three years that went toward her libel sentence. That leaves one year of wrongful imprisonment. The other factors are a separate part of the claim…

      • Tammy says:

        Abusive interrogation? Says who fairyvexed? Where are your sources for this?

        She chose to implicate an innocent man, who happened to be black. He spent two weeks in jail because of her lies. You are clearly missing the point.

        Try reading this article from salon… I suppose you consider this site to be a tabloid site, right? http://www.salon.com/2015/03/27/amanda_knox_verdict_the_real_evidence_and_why_almost_everything_you_think_you_know_about_the_case_is_wrong/

      • Beatrix says:

        Sorry, ‘fairyvexed’ – the grueling, abusive interrogation is a myth propagated by American media. At most, she was interrogated for two hours and did not have a lawyer because she was initially being questioned as a witness. It wasn’t until she involved herself further upon being questioned that the interrogation was stopped. Read the Salon article that ‘Tammy’ posted here if you don’t wish to go through all of the 10,000+ pages of evidence that are publicly available online.

      • noway says:

        Fairlyvexed I do not have a full understanding of the Italian Justice system, but I guess she could make the case that she was coerced to libel. However, the higher court ruled she did commit that crime, and that would make that harder to prove in a US court, but since they do not use case precedence she might be able to make that claim.

      • msw says:

        Isn’t it interesting how the police department tapes all the interrogations, yet the tape from Amanda’s interrogation went missing?

        Beatrix, you expect the prosecutor to tell the truth about what the police department did? Because that is all you will find in the online evidence–what everyone SAID happened, since the tape mysteriously disappeared.

  18. Dawn says:

    I don’t know if Knox was involved or not. I do believe that she was totally into her lifestyle and as she stated over and over she barely knew Meredith and showed little to no feeling about her death. I feel horrible for the victim in this crime and her family and no one else.

    • Courtney says:

      What “lifestyle”? And we have no idea if she showed her feelings about the death of Meredith. People grieve in different ways and she was immediately entangled in a witch hunt, obviously not a situation where one can grieve properly.

    • Lady D says:

      Amanda said last week, that she would like to hug Meredith’s family if they would publicly admit Amanda wasn’t guilty.
      I saw that conversation on a news program, but I have no idea what it was called. I was flipping through the channels.

  19. Debbie says:

    Sorry I don’t completely buy her innocence. I just don’t and at this point she is free and faces no threat of prosecution she should feel lucky and just quietly move on.

    She got her book deal, her movie deal and all the interviews to make her the victim of another girl’s brutal murder. She needs to be quiet now and show the real victim’s family some respect.

    • Kimble says:

      ^^^^ This ^^^^

    • briargal says:

      Agree totally with you. Just ride off into the sunset…..

    • fairyvexed says:

      Yeah, because she’s beholden to people who don’t read anything but tabloids and gossip sites and rush to attack an innocent girl who was railroaded by a prosecutor who was found guilty of abusing his office. Yeah, that makes total sense.

      • Lady D says:

        I think it’s called simple respect for a tragedy.

      • msw says:

        I think talking about what happened to her 7 years after the murder isn’t disrespectful. Turning a trial into global entertainment, now, that’s disrespectful to Meredith.

    • Kylie says:

      She didn’t kill anyone and her family went broke because the prosecution was on a witch hunt. I doubt the book etc, made that much to get out of the debt hole.

  20. Elly says:

    the financial compensation won´t be that high as americans think. It´s not like in the USA where you can get millions. I dont know about Italy, but in Germany you get only 10-25 euro for every day “innocent” in prision. Just 25 euro for a lost day…that´s a scandal.

    Amanda will likely get compensation for just one year or so. People like to forget that Amanda was found guilty of slandering and got a prison sentence for this. This white all american girl played the “the black guy was it”-card. That´s why i don´t like her (not saying she is a murderer, but what does it say about someone who throws another one to the wolves?) I wonder if the barkeeper will sue her for compensation.

  21. Jen43 says:

    If I were Amanda, I would not want to open that can of worms. I would just walk away and never look back.

  22. FLORC says:

    No evidence proving her guilt. There’s a lot of speculation and wild theories, but no actual evidence.
    What we do know is how the police tried to manipulate a confession. How they offered a lesser sentence to a convicted killer for pointed the finger to her.

    Yea she should get compensated and it won’t be get rich quick money. It’ll barely put a dent in the debt that is still increasing from lawyer fees. If there was Any evidence proving she had anything to do in this outside of the prosecutors fevered dreams I wouldn’t think this way, but there isn’t. Just a lot of speculation.

    And if any of us were in that situation, found innocent, and returned to our family after years of hell and humiliation that also put our family in debt, yea.

    And the prosecutor should be held accountable to Meredith’s family. He filled a grieving families thoughts with his agenda and sickness. No winners in any of this. Everyone’s life is ruined and the prosecutor is at the center. Knowing who more than likely killed Meredith and gave him a lesser sentence.
    This is my only post here. There’s a lot of speculation here and that’s fine for gossip, but imo not here.

  23. HK9 says:

    The case has been a hot mess from beginning to end and how they convicted anyone of anything is beyond me. If I were her, I’d walk away and never look back but after all of this circus, I can’t be mad at her if she wants some restitution.

  24. Kimble says:

    She needs to slink off and be grateful she got away with it! RIP Meredith Kercher

    • fairyvexed says:

      Did you EVEN try reading anything but the worst gossip rags?

      Seriously, some of the bloodthirsty women on this site just scare the crap out of me, the way they’re willing to convict on nothing more than tabloid lies. They’re eager and gleeful about it.

  25. LouLou says:

    She should sue and get as much money as possible based on the fact that plenty of people still think she did it no matter how much evidence is shown to prove that to be untrue. Some people want her to be guilty so much that they have lost all sight of logic. Insane. It doesn’t matter if she is “off.” The evidence does not support their involvement. But whatever…

  26. DarkSparkle says:

    I know this is a gossip site, but the amount of intense dislike and distrust of this woman is baffling to me.

    The vitriol and malice based on ‘she doesn’t act right’ – ‘she’s off’ – ‘she’s cold’ – ‘she’s a sociopath” when odds are not a single one of knows anything about her other than what the media has showed us.

    It makes me really uncomfortable with the idea of “a jury of my peers.” Her conviction was overturned, the evidence against her is soooo thin… and people are still “well, I don’t care if it was overturned, she seems off to me, so she’s involved.” Very nice work, Clouseau.

    People are warmer when speaking of OJ.

    JMO.

    • Veronica says:

      There’s a reason a lot of us who are neurotypical get very, very nervous about ever being caught up in something like this.

      • Darksparkle says:

        Absolutely. I don’t know if i’m officially neurotypical in any way, but I’m generally an introverted, socially anxious bookworm, and the fact that I didn’t cry during my wedding ceremony led to speculation at the reception about ‘just how much’ I love my husband.

        Cue to a hot and steamy wedding night of me drunk and hysterical, repeating “HOW DARE THEY” while sobbing and trying to wrestle out of that damn dress.

        And that was on the happiest day of my life. I cannot even comprehend the world thinking I was a murderer based on *how I come off on television* while going through the worst day of my life.

    • Kitten says:

      Yes, I find it all positively bone-chilling.

  27. RedWeatherTiger says:

    I haven’t read all the comments, so forgive me if this was already covered, but since she WRONGFULLY ACCUSED Patrick Lamumba, did she pay him compensation for the ways in which HIS life was ruined as a result? Remind me how that worked again?

    • fairyvexed says:

      Remind me where he was jailed for four years? Oh, yeah, no, he wasn’t. And how did the cops get that out of her? They fed it it to her while they were interrogating her without breaks, without food or water, or interpreters. So I really don’t give a flying f*** about fake concerns about Patrick Lamumba, it’s just people who want to attack her some more.

      • RedWeatherTiger says:

        I didn’t say he was jailed for four years. I said his life was negatively impacted because of her wrongful, illegal actions. I am not sure how Amanda’s team’s version of the truth came to be your gospel truth, but I believe a great lot of money was spent spinning her into an innocent victim when she is not truly that at all.

      • Wheeze says:

        @fairyvexed

        her interrogation was from 12.30 AM to 1.45 AM, and she had an interpreter, was given water and camomile tea, and snacks from the vending machine. Her defence team never even bothered to challenge at trial this because they knew it was a fact.

        I know her parents went on national to claim 40, 50 hours without food and breaks and no interpreter for her PR cause, but that’s just not true. They’re actually on trial for those lies on TV in Italy. Because Knox was a witness at that stage, she did not have a lawyer; nor was it recorded. She didn’t need much prodding when she wrote up a spontaneous statement later that same morning either; in that she confirmed her accusation of Lumumba.

        It’s telling she folded and accused Lumumba right after Sollecito gave up giving her an alibi. There was no mistreatment. She wasn’t starved or beaten.

        All part of the court records and not challenged by the defence teams at trial. It’s pretty easy to check and you can download the translated judgement reports and court transcripts on one of those many volunteer sites.

    • noway says:

      He was in jail for two weeks and won a $54,000 judgement against her. Not sure if it is being appealed but she has not paid yet. I would bet she doesn’t have the money, and not sure how international debt and laws work, or what his avenue would be for collecting. It’s possible if she collects in Italy her money could be garnished and given to him. That’s what could happen in the US, but we all know it is different in Italy. Also, not sure why he didn’t sue Italy for compensation, but maybe he is going to.

  28. TessD says:

    It doesn’t matter how much or how little money she got from a book and all the publicity. It has nothing to do with the suffering she went through thanks to Italian authorities. She should seek compensation as any person in her situation absolutely should!!

    • word says:

      I agree. Not to mention the lost income she would have earned had she not been in jail. The lost income of her parents and family members who were there to support her in Italy. The emotional and physical toll this ordeal has taken on her and her family. Not to mention how all this publicity has tarnished her name (even though she was found innocent). It’s going to be very hard for her to live a normal life and get a normal job.

      • Ally.M says:

        Let’s not get carried away and whitewash everything, she’s hardly an innocent wilting flower, don’t forget part of her sentence was 3 years for wrongly accusing Patrick Lumumba who has also suffered. There’s a lot of grey area in this case.

      • Sarah says:

        @Ally M – yeah it isn’t great an innocent guy was implicated but that died down really quickly. He had a confirmed alibi and he was forgotten about. Amanda served gaol time for accusing him. Where’s the gaol time for the people who wrongly accused Amanda? Ohh… because they’re “prosecutors” they’re exempt from laws the rest of us are bound by. They’re the ones who coerced Amanda to implicate Lumumba in the first place…….

  29. Gistine says:

    Methinks the lady doth protest too much.

  30. jwoolman says:

    Maybe the real thing to worry about is that the guy who definitely did kill Meredith is getting a greatly reduced sentence and will be wandering the streets again soon. He has a pattern and is unlikely to suddenly become a model citizen.

    And never underestimate the damage that can be done by a crazy or corrupt prosecutor. We had one here, he ruined lives in his political grandstanding. Fortunately, he was eventually caught with his hand in the cookie jar and ended up in prison for a while himself. In the Italian case, the prosecutor’s fixation with Satanism alone should ring loads of alarm bells. Here in the USA, we have had awful experiences with people who are obsessed with seeing Satanism everywhere, merrily wrecking lives of those they falsely accuse and falsely imprison. They do manipulate and distort to make things fit their framework whenever they have the power to do so. And they feel as though they are commissioned by God, so they don’t have any normal inhibitions.

  31. Kiel says:

    No matter the verdict, like OJ, I suspect we’ll be hearing from this delicate flower again in the future.

    I nominate her as America’s New Sweetheart.

  32. Ally.M says:

    She was given a 3 year sentence for wrongly accusing Patrick Lumumba of Meredith’s murder. If she wins the case it should be compensation for 1 year not 4 . The Guardian published an interview asking for Patrick’s thoughts on the acquittal. He’s never recovered from his name being sullied…life has been tough for him and his family too.

    I still believe there’s a lot we don’t know about that fateful night and probably never will.

  33. Wheeze says:

    I think this is just media speculation and probably some of her parasitic supporters (she’s got volunteer lawyers and writers and journalists feeding off her notoriety and getting free coverage in the process) encouraging her.

    The standard for arresting someone on suspicion of murder is much lower than conviction. I don’t think she really has a chance in hell of getting anything. She might have got off due to poor forensic procedures, but getting compensation for her prison term (3 years of which is for a finalised conviction) would be extremely hard. Plus she hasn’t even paid the 50000 euro she owes patrick lumumba yet. He lost his business and had to move to poland. Shouldn’t she do that first before seeking to be compensated for her losses?

  34. H says:

    I have a Masters degree in Criminal Justice, was a cop for two years and read/speak Italian after living in Naples for three years, but after reading up on every aspect of this case, I have no idea if Amanda was involved. Everything was tainted by the Italian press, the unethical prosecutor, inept forensics and Amanda’s lying to the police.

    However, it is nice to see the amateur sleuths coming to a gossip site and giving a hypothesis on Amanda’s guilt/innocence. Personally, I’m waiting to read the high courts transcripts when they are published before coming to a final conclusion.

    • msw says:

      Hi H. I’ve never seen you post here before, so who knows if you are just a tourist here and if you’ll ever see this, but I have a question for you. If Amanda and Raffaele were actually restraining Meredith while Guede stabbed, strangled and raped her, wouldn’t their DNA be someplace? No trace of Amanda was found in the room where Meredith was killed, and the only trace of Raffaele came from the bra clasp, which also showed profiles of other individuals who were obviously not there. We saw the video of the dumb ass video collectors leaving it on the floor for 45 days, passing it back and forth with dirty gloves, and putting it back on the ground, so that’s obviously not at all important. All the other DNA in the room belongs to Meredith and Guede, whose bloody handprints were found in her purse and under her pillow, his foot prints matching the shoes he had a box for on a pillow and his bloody wet footpring the bathroom as he cleaned up, and his semen in her body. So my question is, how could they have participated in the killing? I suppose it is possible Amanda and Raffaele were wearing hazmat suits? That’s pretty good planning.

      • Adele Dazeem says:

        But msw, didn’t you know? Amanda and Raffaele are criminal masterminds! Of course they had their hazmat suits at the ready, just on the off chance they had the opportunity to enact their game plan to murder Amanda’s flatmate. Gosh, they even managed to find another like-minded criminal (the real killer Rudy Guede) to help them in their grand scheme.

        I totally agree with you. How could this idea of them all being in the room together even have made it to trial?

      • msw says:

        Bottom line, the prosecution could not have scrubbed Amanda and Raffaele’s DNA out of the crime scene any more than Amanda and Raffaele could. You can’t clean your own DNA out of a room and not someone else’s. This was a slam dunk which pointed to a solo killer. Everything else is making the evidence try to fit the crime instead of the other way around, relying on information which has been shown uncredible, or outright lies, or conjecture. I may not have experience as a cop or a criminal law degree, but this is pretty simple.

    • AH says:

      H -

      You have a vastly higher opinion of the Italian high court than seems warranted considering the circumstances, but you’re certainly welcome to base your conclusions on whatever Italy’s best legal minds eventually get around to saying on the matter.

      To say the Italian legal system is broken would be an immense understatement. It is, by design, lumbering and ineffectual – and that’s at best. The entire system, from investigation to trial and beyond, was built on corruption from the ground up. They are now so mired in wasteful spending and endless litigation, there’s no end in sight.

      And make no mistake, Italian attorneys like it that way. Italy has close to a quarter million working attorneys, a number higher relative to its population than anywhere else in Europe. They are arguably the most powerful lobby in Italian politics, and notoriously resistant to reform.

      The Directorate General for Justice with the European Commission, a reform-minded investigatory arm of the EU, maintains a “scoreboard” for its “Union Court” member states, and not surprisingly, Italy scores poorly by nearly every metric.

      People complain about the American justice system, but it operates under the veritable wisdom of Solomon compared to Italy’s.

  35. mootwo says:

    she and her family have huge lawyers bills for the how many years this has been going on, so the book deal etc helps pay for that.

  36. TartLemon says:

    Amanda Knox was credited with time served when she was sentenced for lying about bar owner Patrick Lummumba. It is a serious crime in Italy to falsely accuse and cause to be arrested someone who is innocent. Therefore, Amanda Knox is not owed anything for the time served because it was for a crime she committed.

  37. AH says:

    It was never”doubtful” that the U.S. would extradite her. Per our extradition treaty with Italy, we absolutely would have sent her back to serve out her sentence.

    I would personally take a deep breath, stay on friendly soil for a good long time, and get on with the rest of my life.

    • msw says:

      That’s not true. Extradition requests are denied in a lot of circumstances.

      • AH says:

        “It was always doubtful that the American authorities would extradite her” is simply not true. There were, are, and likely never would be legal grounds for the U.S. to intervene on Knox’s behalf, especially as they pertain to our extradition agreement with Italy.

        The political pressure to “save” Knox also isn’t there, and likely never would be. A vast majority of people polled in England, Italy and the U.S. think Knox is guilty.

        The U.S. has a bad enough reputation worldwide regarding its willingness to extradite (though, upon closer examination of the actual numbers, crimes and criminals involved – not to mention, some other countries’ pretty dismal stats themselves – it’s a rep not entirely deserved), and is currently sweet-talking a handful of foreign extraditions it really, REALLY wants. Even if the legal impetus were there, it’s not likely to muddy the waters further for the likes of Amanda Knox.

      • msw says:

        I wouldn’t know, I’m not an extradition expert. But the fact remains, sometimes extradition requests are denied. I could see it happening here, due to the poor collection of evidence and the possibility the US would see it as double jeopardy, even if it was all part of one case, per Italian law. My hunch is they woudln’t, but I don’t know. No one does.

      • AH says:

        Double jeopardy was never going to apply in this case.

  38. msw says:

    So, one thing I’m wondering about…. if Knox was there in the room with Guede, she would have known Guede’s DNA was everywhere. Why would she implicate Lumumba if she knew Guede could be identified by the forensic evidence? This leads me to believe she truly had no idea Guede was involved.