Convicts testify in defense of Amanda Knox
Amanda Knox arrives for a court session Saturday in Perugia, Italy.
June 18th, 2011
09:17 AM ET

Convicts testify in defense of Amanda Knox

An Italian inmate on Saturday testified that a fellow prisoner confessed that Amanda Knox, the American student convicted of murder in Italy, was not actually involved in the killing.

Knox was sentenced last year to 26 years in prison for the death of Meredith Kercher at a villa the two shared in Perugia, the central Italian town where both were students.

Knox has vehemently proclaimed her innocence and her family has continued to fight the conviction.

There was nearly two hours of legal wrangling between attorneys before the judge decided to allow inmate Mario Alessi to testify. Alessi is serving a 30-year sentence for kidnapping and killing a 18-month old boy.

Alessi testified that Rudy Guede, who has also been convicted of being involved in Kercher's murder and is serving a 16-year sentence, told him that Knox was not involved in the killing.

Post by:
Filed under: Amanda Knox • Crime • Italy
soundoff (29 Responses)
  1. John Winters

    The comments on this blog (which sadly project onto Amanda's hypothesised actions on the night in question, the sheer unhappy paucity of the world perceptions of their composers), worryingly expose the kind of people poor Amanda is up against in her fight to prove her innocence and clear her horribly smeared name. God help her!

    June 18, 2011 at 5:44 pm | Report abuse |
    • Audra Cowan

      Amanda Knox was charged with murder because she was an ACCESSORY to the crime. She may not have had direct involvement in the killing, itself however her conviction is legitimate based on the overwhelming evidence she assisted in covering up the murder. For those ignorant to law, its like this: let's say a friend asked you to drive to the bank and your friend ended up robbing the teller and you drove them back home. Whether you had knowledge prior to or after the crime, you will be found guilty for aiding the assailant. The most damning evidence against Amanda is not the DNA evidence on the knife or any portion of the crime scene, it is the sole fact she & her boyfriend bought bleach after the murder and used it to clean the evidence that would tie them to the scene. In this light, it was established they had some form of knowledge a murder was committed. In this course of action where there was lack common sense s.a. contacting and cooperating with the police, I firmly believe her conviction is legitimate.

      June 19, 2011 at 7:50 am | Report abuse |
  2. fernace

    Hey there John Winters. You seem to have knowledge, & are certain that Ms Knox is innocent. Perhaps you should testify! Or do I detect a jailhouse crush, she is cute!?!.

    June 18, 2011 at 8:10 pm | Report abuse |
  3. RuffNutt

    Ellis. Ellis. Where are you?

    June 18, 2011 at 8:14 pm | Report abuse |
  4. Zadoc Paet

    POLL: Could new witnesses and DNA evidence prove that Amanda Knox is innocent?

    Personally, I was never convinced of her guilt.

    June 18, 2011 at 10:48 pm | Report abuse |
  5. Jazzzzzzzz

    Happy Father's Day John Winters.

    June 19, 2011 at 7:20 am | Report abuse |
  6. John Winters

    @audra cowan - The prosecution account of Amanda buying bleach the next morning has been thoroughly undermined and proved to be a total fabrication and part of the overall frame-up of Amanda and Raffaele. Back in November 2007, the Perugian police team working the case claimed to have found in a search of Raffaele's apartment, receipts for bleach bought from a local shop the morning after the killing. They even leaked this'find' to the press shortly before Amanda and Raffaele were remanded in custody for the duration of their trial at a preliminary hearing. In other words, the police fabricated the existence of the receipts and got a result from this fabrication: the immediate incarceration of Amanda and Raffaele who they had already decided were guilty from studies of their body language(!!!!). Needless to say, at trial proper, the receipts were never produced by the prosecution (and remember that if they had been, Amanda and Raffaele would have been well and truly sunk), because these receipts had never actually existed, just as the visit to the shop to buy bleach hadn't actually taken place. NO DNA traces of Amanda in the murder room spell out one thing loud and clear - Amanda Knox was never in the murder room that night and could not possibly have taken part in the fierce struggle and brutal murder which took place there. Alternatively, there is ample DNA evidence that Rudy Guede was there, murdered the poor victim and robbed her purse of a measly 300 Euros. And if you think Amanda Knox was an accessory to an event like that, you are just being plain offensive madam.

    June 19, 2011 at 12:06 pm | Report abuse |
    • LesWilis

      Indeed, the testimony from the shopkeeper who saw her waiting outside for him to open and then come in to purchase bleach seemed far-fetched. Most people keep bleach in the bathroom or kitchen cabinet. Supposing the crime were premeditated, most criminals would purchase the bleach in cash, in advance and ditch the receipt. If you're covering up evidence with bleach, why would you hang onto the receipt? Also, their would be surveillance video of Knox from the subway, bus or passing by store-fronts on foot on the way.

      July 3, 2011 at 1:05 am | Report abuse |
  7. banasy

    @Cesar Real:

    I would never do anything to ACP OR Ellis...I'm a lover, not a killer.

    Methinks they took the weekend off....maybe they only have access to a work computer.

    June 19, 2011 at 3:28 pm | Report abuse |
  8. tilmeismoney

    She probably wouldn't even harm a fly. "Tony Perkins"

    June 19, 2011 at 4:53 pm | Report abuse |
  9. madboots

    Corruption, incompetence and hairy women. Much better places to visit than Italy.

    June 19, 2011 at 8:40 pm | Report abuse |
  10. bmull

    Knox is link bait for CNN. They chronicle every twist and turn, never mentioning the mountain of evidence that establishes her guilt. Because if every reader knew that the convicts' testimony and the amount of flesh on the knife is a trivial part of the prosecution's rock solid case, who would read?

    June 19, 2011 at 11:12 pm | Report abuse |
  11. anon

    June 22, 2011 at 1:49 am | Report abuse |
1 2