Italy top court: Amanda Knox conviction was based on flawed case

Italy's top criminal court issued a formal explanation of throwing out Amanda Knox and her ex-boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito's convictions for the 2007 murder of her British roommate on Monday, saying that there was no proof Knox and Sollecito were at the crime scene.

Pier Paolo Cito/AP/File
In this Oct. 3, 2011 file photo Amanda Knox cries after hearing the verdict that overturned her conviction and acquitted her of murdering her British roommate Meredith Kercher, at the Perugia court, central Italy. Italy's highest criminal court has overturned the acquittal of Amanda Knox in the slaying of her British roommate and ordered a new trial.

Italy's top criminal court has scathingly faulted prosecutors for presenting a flawed and hastily constructed case against Amanda Knox and her former Italian boyfriend, saying Monday it threw out their convictions for the 2007 murder of her British roommate in part because there was no proof they were at the crime scene.

The Court of Cassation issued its formal written explanation, as required by Italian law, for its March ruling vindicating the pair once and for all in the murder of Meredith Kercher, in the apartment the two women shared while students in Perugia, Italy.

The court wrote there was an "absolute lack of biological traces" of Knox, an American, or co-defendant Raffaele Sollecito in the room or on the victim's body. Slamming the quality of the prosecution's case, the court cited "blameworthy omissions of investigative activity."

Media clamor also was a factor in what was ultimately a flawed case, the high court concluded.

"The international spotlight on the case in fact resulted in the investigation undergoing a sudden acceleration, that, in the frantic search for one or more guilty parties to consign to international public opinion, certainly didn't help the search for substantial truth," the judges wrote.

The high court in March declared that Knox, now 28, and Sollecito, now 31, didn't murder the 21-year-old Kercher, a stronger exoneration than merely finding there was insufficient evidence to convict.

Had the Cassation Court upheld the 2014 appeals court convictions of the pair, Knox would have faced 28½ years in an Italian prison, assuming she would have been extradited from the United States, while Sollecito had faced 25 years.

They had always proclaimed their innocence. A man from Ivory Coast, Rudy Hermann Guede, was convicted in separate proceedings and is serving a 16-year sentence.

The Cassation panel of five judges essentially concluded that while there were indications Guede could have had accomplices, nothing in the prosecutors' case proved that either Knox or Sollecito were involved in the murder.

It also wrote that the lower court ignored expert testimony that "clearly demonstrated possible contamination" of evidence and misinterpreted findings about the knife allegedly used to slit Kercher's throat, in what prosecutors had described as a sexual assault.

On more than one of the 52 pages of explanation, the judges agreed with the defendants' contentions that the convictions were a "violation of the principle of a reasonable doubt."

Knox and her Sollecito were first convicted by a Perugia court in 2009, then acquitted after a first appeals court trial. They were convicted again in 2014, after a separate Cassation Court panel overturned those acquittals and ordered the Florence appeals.

While the flip-flop verdicts and appeals ran their course, Knox became a cause celebre in the United States, where many saw her as an innocent victim of a miscarriage of justice and sloppy investigative methods.

Monday's explanation effectively agreed with her supporters.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.