Amanda Knox Co-Defendant Alleges Mistreatment During Interrogations

Raffaele Sollecito, the co-defendant of Amanda Knox who was also acquitted of murder this week by the appeals court, alleges the police treated him violently and with coercion after his arrest. Amanda Knox has said in the past she was assaulted and browbeaten by police.

Ms Knox has also claimed that she was assaulted during questioning and that the verbal and physical intimidation caused her to wrongly claim that an innocent man, the bar owner Patrick Lumumba, committed the killing. [More...]

Claudio Pratillo Hellmann, one of the two judges advising the jury suggested in an interview today that perhaps Amanda and Raffaelle know who was involved in Mereditih Kercher's killing.

He said Rudy Guede, an Ivory Coast-born drifter who is now the only person behind bars for the murder in Nov 2007, “certainly” knew what happened. “I won’t say he’s the only one to know,” the judge added.... He said: “Maybe the two defendants also know” what really happened.

Very unlikely in my view. I think if Amanda or Raffaele know who they were taking the rap for, they would have spoken up -- if for no other reason than to clear themselves. And that anyone who buys Amanda's future book hoping to find out what really happened will be in for a disappointment. Her book will be on the plight of the wrongly accused and imprisoned, something she unfortunately does know all about.

Maybe they don't have this saying in Italy?

(Tee shirt available here.)

< Sarah Palin Announces She Will Not Run for President | IRS Denies Medical Marijuana Business Deductions >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Wrongly accused? (3.00 / 2) (#7)
    by DancingOpossum on Thu Oct 06, 2011 at 09:51:22 AM EST
    Yes, she certainly is an expert in wrongful accusations since she blatantly accused Patrick Lumumba--a completely innocent black man who was her boss--of murder, and refused to retract the confession even while Lumumba sat in prison for weeks. Lumumba lost his business and was not released until a tourist from Switzerland, IIRC, saw his name in the paper and remembered that he, the tourist, had been in Lumumba's bar and seen him there on the night in question. If not for this man, who was willing to return to Italy to testify, Amanda and Raffaele would have happily let Lumumba take the blame.

    What a lovely pair.

    Nope. I know this site is pro-defendant, but this ruling frankly stinks. Amanda and Raffaele are guilty of murder, but they were freed by a fierce pro-Amanda PR campaign and Italy's highly pro-defendant criminal justice system. (On which note, I am appalled at the regular bashing Italian justice system receives from the pro-Knox faction. You could not ask for a court system that bends over backwards more to protect the accused.) And is everyone forgetting that this same court found Knox guilty of slander for claiming--falsely--that she was mistreated by the police? And it's a lie that she didn't have representation during her interrogation, a lawyer was present the entire time.

    As with the O.J. case, we have to accept the verdict of the court while knowing that a murderer (in this case, two murderers) walks free. I'm appalled to find that I have to agree with Nancy Grace, who called this a huge miscarriage of justice.

    We need that shirt (none / 0) (#1)
    by CoralGables on Wed Oct 05, 2011 at 06:25:33 PM EST
    with fewer double negatives.

    Isn't That the Point ? (none / 0) (#6)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Oct 06, 2011 at 08:36:58 AM EST
    examine the premise (none / 0) (#5)
    by diogenes on Wed Oct 05, 2011 at 10:03:14 PM EST
    "Very unlikely in my view. I think if Amanda or Raffaele know who they were taking the rap for, they would have spoken up -- if for no other reason than to clear themselves."

    I somehow think that the judge's premise is that Amanda and/or Raffaele were involved; in that case, they would never speak up, because that would eliminate any chance they had of being cleared.  The judge is pretty clearly describing a "not proven" verdict.