Justice denied: My thoughts on the Amanda Knox verdict

Unless you're living under a rock, you know by now that Amanda Knox has been acquitted for the final time in the slaying of Meredith Kercher. The highest court in Italy overturned her conviction, absolving her of involvement in the death of her former roommate, granting Knox the ultimate freedom she has sought since she was reconvicted. I realize that a lot of people are excited about the verdict and are happy for Ms. Knox, but I still feel strongly in my belief that she is not fully innocent when it comes to this horrific murder.

In other words, I believe there was no justice in Italy on Friday night. The system completely failed Meredith Kercher.

A tremendous amount of evidence existed against Amanda Knox, Raffaele Sollecito and Rudy Guede that indicated all three of them were involved in the murder of Meredith Kercher. This is completely contrary to the mantra chanted by Knox's devoted fan club. Of course, Knox had a stellar PR team here in the United States -- a PR team that strategically controlled the tone of the media coverage about her here in the United States.

Like George Zimmerman, Casey Anthony and OJ Simpson, Knox has found herself luckier than the average killer. Like all three of the aforementioned acquitted persons, there was just enough evidence to create a rift between the public -- between people who believed she was guilty, and people who wanted to believe in her innocence so much that they allowed themselves to be completely manipulated by the PR-powered media coverage and the obscene amount of misinformation that still exists about this case.

Today, Amanda is a free woman. She lives in Seattle almost flaunting the fact that she was released after so much evidence seemed to prove that she was -- at the least -- involved in staging a break-in and obstructing justice in the case of Meredith Kercher's murder. At the least, her behavior indicated that she had inside knowledge of Meredith's slaying, and at the most the evidence indicated that she was directly involved. Nonetheless, the highest court in Italy has decided to simply let her go.

But why?

My thoughts on this are varied. Right now none of us are fully aware of the reasoning behind the judges' decision to overturn Knox's conviction. They have a couple of months before they have to publish their official reasoning, but they could publish it at any time. In the meantime, there is plenty of gossip and speculation surrounding why Italy decided to let Amanda Knox go after so many years of insisting that she was involved in a horribly gruesome murder. One popular theory is that they simply decided that it would be nearly impossible to get her extradited from the U.S. back to Italy where she would have served close to 30 years.  This isn't so much declaring Knox's innocence so much as declaring their desire to simply move on from this polarizing case.

Regardless of the official reasons for the acquittal there is one thing that has been made clear: There will be no justice for Meredith Kercher. Just like there will be no justice for Caylee Marie Anthony, Trayvon Martin or even Nicole Brown Simpson. Sometimes, people get away with murder, and there's nothing that can prevent that.

Do you want to talk about Amanda Knox's case? Don't miss Sunday's podcast!


  1. Sad you would post that most vile picture! You lied, You Lost, the right thing to do in light of this outcome it to give Amanda Knox back some of the dignity you stole from her over the years. This whole website and your whole career was launched on the back of Amanda Knox and your hate driven campaign. This post makes you look pathetic, holding on to lies and half truths that have officially been resolved. The outcome form the ISC is very clear. Amanda and Raffaelle were not involved.

  2. Well done Chelsea!, another well written reasoned article

  3. ChelseaHoffman.ComMarch 28, 2015 at 12:49 PM

    Thank you!

    I dont expect her fan club to grasp "reason," though.

  4. How much in your bank account Chelsea? Hm? You do realize what your article and your statements constitutes now? Your statements have no subststive foundation. In fact your statements intend to bring harm to Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. That is a problem for you.

  5. Still the coward Deleting posts you don't like. Won't protect you. You should pay attention to the other hate sites rapidly pulling the plug. Are you smart enough to follow suit? Huh?

  6. I wouldn't usually lower myself to click on your articles, but I just wanted to remind you that there are some pretty stringent libel laws in the US...perhaps you should consider this the next time you spew your usual poison. It;s over, Chelsea...you're done here...get another life!

  7. Keep deleting Chelsea. You can't hide!

  8. The real murderer is in jail. The only people who think differently are you and Nancy Grace. At least she knows how to make real money off of her sensationalism.

  9. Hi Chelsea!
    just wanted you to know you absolutely gorgeous!
    Please let us know when you tie the knot with some lucky man (or woman).

  10. Chelsea, you have hounded Amanda Knox with unfounded and poorly reasoned bottom-feeding articles for years. In fact the acquittal had nothing to do with American PR. The decision was made by judges in Italy. You speculate that the judges decided to free her because they "simply decided that it would be nearly impossible to get her extradited from the U.S. back to Italy". What about Sollecito? He's Italian. Why did they set him free, then?

    Really, I hope that you and your pro-guilt troll friends get what you deserve. A lawsuit!

  11. The case against Amanda and Raffaele was contrived and false. The break-in was not staged. There is no evidence of a cleanup. Guede did not need accomplices to perpetuate his crimes against Meredith. The evidence against Guede was different from that used against Amanda and Raffaele. The results of the test alleging Meredith's DNA on the kitchen knife were obtained by magnifying the sample beyond any reasonable expectation of finding anything that was not static background. There was the DNA of several other men on that bra clasp. There was no attempt made to use protocols to eliminate contamination from that bra clasp, but if it were not contamination, why weren't those other men suspects also? There mixed DNA prove nothing since both Amanda and Raffaele had been in that cottage before and after the murder. All the alleged lies prove nothing. Curatolo was not a reliable witness, but his testimony would put Amanda and Raffaele in the public square when the murder took place. Only Meredith and Guede were observed on CCTV heading toward the cottage. The alleged CCTV video of someone supposedly looking like Amanda was showing that person walking away from the cottage BEFORE the murder. Even if the shopkeeper did see Amanda in his store, that doesn't put her at the murder. The footprints and the shoe prints attributed to Amanda and Raffaele were outside the murder room where they probably stepped in Guede's shoe prints leading out of the cottage. There was no evidence that Amandaor Raffaele ever stepped into Meredith's blood inside the murder room. The police were wrong about Raffaele not calling the regular police until after the Postal Police arrived. The statements that the police had Amanda sign show how confused she was about the interrogations, and they don't even say that Patrick was the killer. Amanda immediately wrote two Memorandum that further confirms that the police abused her and in which she tried to explain that she didn't believe what she wrote in the statements the police had her sign. Justice was not denied by the Italian Supreme Court recognizing that the lower court convictions were false and exonerating Amanda and Raffaele. Guede alone was responsible for the death of Meredith Kercher, and the prosecutors and the judges were only trying to convict Amanda and Raffaele in advance by stating that Guede was convicted "with accomplices." The evidence against Guede was not the same as the so-called evidence used against Amanda and Raffaele. Of course by trying to "piggy-back" the case against Amanda and Raffaele onto the conviction of Guede "with accomplices," the prosecutors and judges were trying to say it was the same evidence. Now Guede is trying to say he should be freed because of this illusion in words.

  12. So what? You never answered our questions before. Why should I expect anything different now?

  13. ChelseaHoffman.ComApril 10, 2015 at 1:02 PM

    "You never answered our questions before." -- You're mistaken if you've been led to believe that I owe you anything of the sort.

  14. How really telling of you! You make unsubstantiated assertions, but you don't have to answer to questions? I do expect that from delusional trolling guilters.

  15. ChelseaHoffman.ComApril 10, 2015 at 2:42 PM

    I shouldn't have to remind "adults," of this, but apparently I have to:

    This is not a playground for insults, trolling or attacks on anybody. If you don't know how to be civil, go elsewhere.

  16. My! I wish I had thought of that one when guilters made their ridiculous demands.

  17. ChelseaHoffman.ComApril 10, 2015 at 2:47 PM

    I wouldn't know anything about that. I don't make demands to people who aren't important to the cases I cover. Inane comment-thread wars don't interest me.

  18. I think there is a lot you choose not to know. I don't know about your other projects, but you refuse to know a lot about the misbegotten case against Amanda and Raffaele.

  19. I think that is an attack on me personally. Why do you need to be reminded that you are responsible for what you say?

  20. Remember that you are the one who removed my comment without challenging it. If I am the troll, why aren't you up to exposing me for what I've said?

  21. ChelseaHoffman.ComApril 10, 2015 at 2:57 PM

    That's your opinion. Just like it's my opinion that you're simply misinformed. And there's truly no need to start flame wars over it because I have zero (0) interest in changing opinion of people who don't want their opinions changed.

  22. Chelsea, you have lost. You may have "removed" my comments from your website, but you cannot remove them from Disqus. They are right there in my profile for anyone to see.

  23. ChelseaHoffman.ComApril 10, 2015 at 3:19 PM

    The only person who has 'lost' in all of this is Meredith (and her loved ones).

    I've removed your comments from this website because you continue to be rude and unnecessarily insulting, even after you've been told that I am not interested in a flame war or in changing your opinion. You are insisting on forcing yourself on me with your obsession with your opinion on this case, and you are acting like a child.

    You think Knox is innocent. Good for you and so what. Nobody here wants to play troll tag with you. Take the hint and go find someone who is actually willing to feed your thirst for histrionics.

  24. You have demonstrated this zero (0) interest for quite some time. You have never substantiated your biased assertions against Amanda and Raffaele. Your previous articles in the Ground Report have always taken a non-neutral aspect. So now you want me to believe that you were always neutral? Don't disparage my intelligence.

  25. Chelsea repeats the old chestnut that a small PR firm was
    able to control the entire US media and media coverage in the US was
    biased. Misconduct was committed on a
    massive scale by the prosecution. During
    the interrogations the prosecution denied Amanda and Raffaele access to lawyers,
    their interrogations were not taped and they were not officially told they were
    suspects. Amanda and Raffaele did not
    have access to lawyers until their first court hearing. The prosecution told suppressed evidence
    which is detailed here http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/lab-data-suppression/
    http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/contamination-labwork-coverup/. The prosecution told numerous lies which are
    detailed here https://knoxsollecito.wordpress.com/list-of-prosecution-and-press-lies-told-about-amanda-knox-and-raffaele-sollecito/. Can Chelsea provide an example where the
    evidence suppressed and the lies told by the prosecution have been featured in
    the American media. If the misconduct
    committed by the prosecution has not been shown by the American media, can
    Chelsea explain this if the American media is so biased in favour of Amanda?
    This is a thread I started on the IIP forum where I invited people to think of
    awkward questions they would like to ask the prosecution. Can Chelsea provide an example where any of
    these questions have been asked by the American media? If the American media is
    so biased in favour of Amanda why have these questions not been asked? Chelsea
    Hoffman forgets journalists hostile towards Amanda such as Barbara Nadeu and
    Andrea Vogt were from the United States.


Post a Comment

Leave your feedback, but keep it civil! Although you may comment anonymously, all comments are moderated before they are approved for publication.

Popular Posts