Saturday, September 10, 2011

Ann Coulter's Continuing Error on Amanda Knox and My Rebuttal

Note to Readers:  Prominent conservatives are not immune from criticism at this blog, especially when they have taken positions or made statements that are lazily based on myth or rumor instead of fact, or when they are patently self-serving.  I have previously leveled serious criticism at Mark Levin for this, for example (on his biased and erroneous concepts of the American Civil War).  Ann Coulter seems determined to destroy any credibility she has left with sloppy thinking and zero research into the facts surrounding the wrongful conviction of Amanda Knox, and this is not her first excursion into the subject.  She deserves a broadside and she gets it below.


Over at World Net Daily Ann Coulter has once again insisted that Amanda Knox was guilty of murder, in spite of an almost complete absence of evidence or motive tying Knox to the crime.  Amanda Knox, if you don't know, is an American student who was studying in Italy and wrongly convicted of murdering her housemate, Meredith Kercher.  (The real perpetrator, a thug named Rudy Guede, was convicted of the crime after his bloody footprints, fingerprints, DNA and semen were found all over the crime scene.  He lied and said he was only a spectator, that Amanda Knox and another housemate, Raffaele Sollecito, committed the crime, even though there was no DNA or fingerprints or bloody footprints from either of them anywhere near the crime scene, despite Mignini's misrepresentations to the contrary).  Guede's lies were not unrewarded:  his 30 year prison term for murder was reduced to only 16 years.  Knox and Sollecito were later sentenced to 26 and 25 years, respectively -- based only on the imagination of Prosecutor Mignini.  Note the irony:  the actual murderer got ten years less than two innocent people.  Italian justice would appear to be little more than a bad joke.

Knox had nothing to do with the crime, and the extensive scenario described by a ruthlessly dishonest prosecutor was nothing more than a fantasy.  The prosecution's "evidence" has been thoroughly debunked by former FBI agent Steven Moore and Forensic Engineer Ron Hendry, Mark Waterubury, PhD, among others.  Indeed, there has been a growing crowd of voices who have reviewed the evidence and have concluded that Amanda Knox and her boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito are innocent.  Nevertheless, Coulter continues to repeat disproven prosecution arguments as if they were fact, showing that her grasp of the case is entirely superficial.  For instance, she argues:

1.  That Amanda Knox falsely implicated her boss, Patrick Lumumba, in the crime, "to throw suspicion off of herself."  However, that's not true.  The prosecutors had found a negro hair at the murder site and suspected Lumumba, who is black.  They wanted Knox to implicate Lumumba so they could arrest him.  In a rigorous and exhausting all-night interrogation of Knox, where she was denied sleep, water and food and often slapped on the back of the head "to help her remember," the prosecution obtained a false and coerced "confession":  Knox was asked to "imagine" a scenario where Lumumba took part in the murder, and she gave the imaginary scenario as requested, to stop the tortuous ordeal of an abusive interrogation and finally be allowed to drink water and sleep.  (Note:  I recently saw a documentary unrelated to this case that proved false confessions are easy to obtain through aggressive techniques such as these.  That's why they are illegal in most western nations.)  Lumumba was arrested, but had an air tight alibi and was soon released.  The negro hair, however, belonged to the real killer, a black man named Rudy Guede who was later convicted.  No problem for the prosecution:  they dropped Lumumba and inserted Guede into their fantasized scenario of group sex turned murder.  [See more about false confessions here.]

2.  That the break-in had been "staged" by Knox and Sollecito to hide their own guilt.  The evidence:  broken glass from the entry window was scattered about the room on top of clothes on the floor, which were allegedly thrown around to make the room appear ransacked by a burglar.  If the clothes were thrown around after the break-in, they would have been on top of the glass, not the other way around.  Therefore, the prosecution concluded that Knox et al must have broken the window AFTER they had strewn clothes around to simulate a break-in.  The "staged break-in," however, was nothing but unproven speculation.

The truth:  the entry room was very small and the resident who lived there had very limited closet space, so she stored a lot of her clothes on the floor.  Some of her clothes were dirty and in messy piles, and so when Rudy Guede broke the window with a rock, the glass naturally landed on top of these existing piles.  The clothing was not put there by Knox or Sollecito.  Further, the rock that broke the window damaged the wooden window shutter, hit the floor, hit a paper bag on the floor, and rolled to a stop further in the room, where it was later found.  Coulter bases her argument simply on the false scenario painted by the prosecution, who had prejudged the case from the beginning and was looking for "evidence" to support its preconceived notions.

3.  That investigators determined there were multiple assailants in the murder.  Actually, this isn't true at all.  The prosecution, bent on getting convictions at any cost, simply lied about it.  There is no physical evidence to support this claim.  The only fingerprints, footprints and DNA in the murder room (besides those of the victim) were those of Rudy Guede.  Even the unflushed feces in the toilet were those of Guede (based on DNA testing).  There is no credible physical evidence or motive that ties Knox or Sollecito to the crime...none at all.

Coulter's latest column indicates that Knox must be guilty because some liberals are supporting her, and it's not a question of guilt or innocence, but of conservatism vs liberalism.  If convicting two innocent people of a crime they didn't commit and ruining their lives helps conservatism, it isn't obvious to me.

However, the question of Knox and Sollecito's guilt or innocence isn't about partisan politics.  It is about two young people wrongly convicted of a crime they did not commit, by a seemingly unbalanced prosecutor who has now been convicted himself to a 16 month prison term for prosecutorial irregularities in another case.

I am very much disappointed in Ann Coulter.  Her latest publicity-seeking gambit displays a slippery grasp of the facts, and is based on popular rumors and falsehoods, all of which have been disproved.  If this is an example of Coulter's intellectual honesty and rigor, then why should anyone believe any of her arguments on any subject?  I say this as someone who has read most of her books (including her most recent, Demonic) and who has defended her on many an occasion, as my posts in this blog will show.

Right now, in Italy, Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are apparently winning their appeals trial (all of the prosecution's so-called DNA evidence had been thrown out) and it is expected that they will be exonerated and released by the end of this month.  After almost four years of wrongful imprisonment, these two young college students may be able to resume their lives.

If any readers want to know just how thoroughly the prosecution's case has been debunked, visit this site:

Related post:  "At Long Last, Ms. Coulter, Have You No Sense of Decency?"


david7134 said...

Coulter is acting a bit off lately. She needs to stay on topic with politics.

michellesings said...

I tried to comment but don't think it went through. So, lemme repeat what I had said. I could NOT agree with you more and I'm a Republican.
I had also said that if there's no group called "Bleeding Heart Republican's" I'm officially starting one. Thank you so much. I hope you emailed this to not only her but to her bosses as well.
Thanks again. Sincerely,
Michelle Moore
She gives Republicans a baaaaad name. :(

Will said...

I'm so glad to see someone else putting the FACTS out there on this case. There have been so many views posited in the media without any factual support. There was a documentary with hayden panetierre that wasn't based upon fact at all.

I am a conservative. I vote Republican. I do believe that liberal media bias is one of the reasons why we have these problems, as there's a rush to judgment in the newspapers and on tv, long before the facts of the case emerge. But once a case reaches court, it is about one thing...the FACTS and ONLY the facts.

And in this case, I don't know how anyone can believe Amanda Knox is in anyway guilty. In fact, the evidence supports complete innocence.

In my mind, this is the most brutal carriage of justice since the Duke lacrosse case. If this case was conducted in the US, not only would Amanda Knox not be convicted, she wouldn't have even been arrested. And the only person in jail would be Rudy Guede serving a life sentence.

Stogie said...

Will, I totally agree. Rudy Guede should never again see the light of day. I too think it is similar to the Duke Lacrosse case: an overzealous prosecutor who cared more about his reputation than he did about truth and justice.

jccourt said...

Very well written article, the author did his homework.

It is crystal clear that Amanda Knox and Rafaelle Sollecito were railroaded by the Perugian authorities, and that many journalists helped promote the lies associated with this case, to built a bogus case against these innocent students.

Italy now needs to investigate the investigators. thanks.

Stogie said...

jc, I agree: Mignini needs to be prosecuted (again) and he needs to be sued by the Knox family as well.

Anonymous said...

The Negro is in prison & the All American white girl is free...that's all that matters.

Let's hope Seattle gives this suspected murderess the welcome home she deserves & not the welcome you might reserve for a drug taking, sex game playing, knife wielding socipath...because of cause she's none of these things...Knox is a cartwheeling, attractive white American free spirited girl railroaded by Europeans into confessing to the crimes of a drug dealing Negro.

As for Meredith Kercher...her mother is a Negro too & being British she is probably a Libral, fag loving Socialist. I doubt for one minute she supports the EDL or any other decent, upstanding group of British citizens, ya racist prick.

Stogie said...

Ah, ain't that cute, Anonymous is trying to be ironic. Amanda Knox was a 20 year old kid when she was framed by the unbalanced Italian prosecutor. All of the allegations you make in your silly comment have been disproved, oh except for the cartwheels. Now there's a reliable indicator of a murderess for sure. You must be the reincarnation of Sherlock Holmes to note this irrefutable connection.

Yes, you are a liberal, someone who believes blacks are the moral and intellectual equivalent of the Dalai Llama, obviously as innocent as Jesus because of the extra melanin content of their epidermis.

No, you Euroweenie prick, none of your leftist fantasies have any bearing on this case, nor does your anti-Americanism, which is nothing more than a European feeling of inferiority, leading to an irrational desire to persecute an innocent college kid.

We had to save your worthless asses from both the Nazis and the Commies, and I suppose we'll have to save your cowardly asses from the Jihadis as well, sooner or later. But in the meantime, have some respect for your betters, asshole.

Tiffany said...

Then why did she serve 3 years for slander against Mr. Lumbumbo dude. Amanda is guilty. She lied after she made meredith die. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF COERSION FROM THE POLICE ONLY HER TESTIMONY STATING IT WHICH CAN BE CALLED INTO QUESTION AFTER SHE HAS LIED SO MANY TIMES THROUGH OUT THE CASE.

Stogie said...


Knox was sentenced to three years by the appellate jury for time served, mainly so Knox wouldn't be able to sue them for false imprisonment. There is plenty of evidence that they abused her during the initial interrogations, namely, the absence of any tape of the interrogations, as required by Italian law. The police either did not tape them or did tape them and withheld the tapes, to further obstruct justice in this sham of a trial.

You're ignorant of the facts, indicating you must be from Great Britain. Knox never lied about anything and she had no part in Guede's rape and murder of Kercher, so get over yourself. You'll have to find a new scapegoat, a new "witch" to burn at the stake, a new lottery victim to stone to death. Knox is not the one. Sorry.

Anonymous said...

buy zolpidem online zolpidem-ct 5mg - zolpidem dosage amounts

Anonymous said...

zolpidem 10 mg zolpidem tartrate w715 - zolpidem images

Anonymous said...

diazepam and dosage diazepam side effects in women - diazepam 10 mg efectos colaterales

Anonymous said...

diazepam cheap buy diazepam no prescription - diazepam urinary retention

Anonymous said...

diazepam for dogs buy diazepam online legally - safe buy diazepam online

Anonymous said...

xanax cost xanax 039 - buy xanax online visa

Anonymous said...

buy diazepam diazepam muscle relaxant side effects - buy diazepam 15 mg

Anonymous said...

diazepam no prescription want buy diazepam online - diazepam dosage by weight

Anonymous said...

buy ativan online ativan max dose - ativan long does last

Anonymous said...

buy ambien online ambien 10 mg abuse - ambien 10 mg pill identification

Anonymous said...

soma medication buy soma online yahoo answers - soma fm radio player

Anonymous said...

ambien pill much ambien cost street - street price ambien 10 mg

Anonymous said...

Blogger: Saberpoint - Post a Comment cheap soma online no prescription - generic soma for sale

Anonymous said...

Blogger: Saberpoint - Post a Comment ativan online no prescription - buy ativan

Stogie said...

And now we see that the Italian court has re-opened the case. I'm not saying Ann is right or wrong, just that we'll see what this new development reveals.

Stogie said...

It only reveals that the Italian court system is a laughing stock of Western Civilization. Coulter really had her head up her ass when she made her erroneous comments.

Stogie said...

this guy is full of it, there was no evidence that somebody broke into the house from the outside.

Stogie said...

this guy is misrepresenting all the evidence. they found Knox's dna mixed with the victim's blood all over the house.

Stogie said...

I don't think establishing a motive is necessary to get a conviction. who knews why sociopaths kill people? I think to make that part of your defense means you have no real defense.

Stogie said...

For example, consider Knox and Sollecito’s flurry of phone calls made between 12:50 pm and 12:55 pm on November 2. It started with Knox calling her mother; explaining that there had been a break-in to the apartment; that her roommate was missing; and asking what she should do. Sollecito made a similar call to his sister. And a few minutes later, the pair actually did call the police apparently on the advice of their family members.

The problem is that when these calls were made, the (postal) police were already there at the apartment. They recorded their arrival time as approximately 12:30 and Sollecito later admitted that he had not yet called the police when the (postal) police had arrived. Why would Knox and Sollecito call the police when there were already police at the apartment? Why didn’t Knox mention to her mother that there were police already there? None of this makes sense unless you consider the possibility that Knox and Sollecito were trying to set up some kind of alibi to explain their failure to contact authorities upon seeing blood and signs of a break-in.

Here’s another example: Shortly after the postal police arrived at the apartment on November 2, Knox advised them that Kercher normally kept her bedroom door locked even if she left the room for just a few minutes. This fact is confirmed by the testimony of Knox’s roommate and roommate’s friends who also arrived around that time and as far as I know, Knox never denied it at trial. However, the roommate also testified that Kercher pretty much never locked her bedroom door. So it seems that Knox lied to the authorities right out of the blocks. Again, this makes sense if you consider that Knox was setting up an explanation for her failure to immediately contact the authorities earlier that day.

Here’s another example: When Sollecito initially called the police to report the break-in into the roommate’s bedroom, he stated that nothing had been taken. This was true, but how did he know it? By his account, the roommate had not yet had a chance to go through her bedroom and verify that nothing had been taken. Again, this makes sense if you assume that Sollecito (and Knox) staged the break-in.

Another significant piece of evidence against Knox and Sollecito was the fact that a break-in was apparently staged at the house. Knox’s roommate — Miss Romanelli — apparently testified that upon returning to her room, she noticed that there was glass from the broken window on top of her strewn belongings. Assuming the testimony is correct, it seems likely that the window was broken after the room was ransacked. She also testified that nothing was taken and that whoever ransacked the room did not seem to have looked at obvious places where there might be valuables. This is decent (but perhaps not compelling) evidence that the break-in was staged. (Of course Sollecito’s statement to the police that nothing was taken is also decent evidence.)

Of course, it’s possible to explain away each piece of evidence against Knox in isolation. But the scenario where it’s all explained away is extremely unlikely compared to the admittedly unlikely scenario that she took part in the murder. My conclusion is that she was probably involved.

Stogie said...

You're the one who is full of it. There was a rock in the room, broken glass all over the floor, and only a fool would suggest that the break-in was staged. Guede's well-know M.O. was to break windows to gain entrance for buglaries. Obviously, since you have no case whatsoever, you are reduced to ridiculous and transparent denials of obvious truths.

Stogie said...

That is completely untrue. Quote your source. Oh wait -- you don't have any.

Stogie said...

You are so full of shit. Meredith surprised Guede in the act of burglarizing the house; he then stabbed her. His DNA, fingerprints, semen, feces and footprints were all over the crime scene, whereas virtually no such evidence existed for Knox or Sollecito. Are you demented? Or do you just hate Knox for some neurotic reason, that a pig like you could never get a girl like her, or that you are a foreigner who hates Americans? What's the real reason you support such transparently false positions?

Stogie said...

You have totally got the facts wrong and are merely repeating lies and misinformation by the losers known as "guilters." Check out where these falsehoods are convincingly rebutted.

Stogie said...

Amanda has not "lied many times throughout the case." Her false identification of Lumumba was coerced. It is easy to coerce false confessions through ruthless interrogation techniques; it happens all the time. See Douglas's new book "Crime and Disorder" where many suspects were coerced through such interrogations.

Stogie said...

You flaming jackass, You are merely making things up to fit your own prejudices. And yes, the drug-dealing thug Guede did the crime; the evidence of that fact is overwhelming.

Stogie said...

You saved Europe from the nazis?I think the Russians might have something to say about that.The Americans barely broke a nail.The Russians did all the heavy lifting and the English and Americans took all the credit.

Stogie said...

Barely broke a nail? You are delusional, aren't you? Every hear of the invasion of Normandy? Ever google pictures of American cemeteries all across Europe? All the Russians did was save their own hides, after first having an alliance with Hitler over the sharing of Poland. And they did that with heavy weapons and other supplies produced by Americans.

BrunoT said...

1. Have you ever heard glass break on a quiet night? Why choose such a loud and difficult form of entry? How would the intruder know she was home if she was his goal? Or that nobody was home if she was not?
2. Have you seen the side of the house an intruder would have to scale to get through that window?
3. Why choose that window when there were better entry points?
4.How many tosses does it take to put a very heavy shot-put like rock through a small window that far above you?
5. What about the 14 days her boss sat in jail? Why did she only recant when it was proven he was innocent?
6. Why did she lie about where she was that night initially?
7. How could investigators suspect her boss? Was he the town negro?
8. Why does a young person turn their phone off on the very night a person is murdered? Most phones have volume control, silent modes, etc. Why do they crave sleep so badly on this night and not others?
9. Who covers a victim they murder? Someone who knows the victim, that's who.
10. Why did Knox claim her roomate always locked her door when the other said she never did?
11. Why did the boyfriend know nothing was stolen, despite not having spent time in her room and not knowing what was there to steal? Did he inventory her jewelry and cash at some point?
12. Why does our cat burglar not steal anything?
13. Who has their apartment broken into and doesn't wake up a sleeping roomate in a locked room?
14. Who tells police she is in the bathroom but go ahead and fill out your report on the break in w/o speaking to her?

Coulter's arguments might be based on incorrect knowlege of facts, but hers were at least convincing. Yours are not.