In Perugia on Saturday Amanda Knox’s legal team launched an appeal of over 300 pages against her 26-year sentence for the murder of British student Meredith Kercher.
The appeal focuses on three main areas: the forensic and DNA evidence presented at the trial, the questioning of Knox which led to her making a confession [later retracted] and “contradictory” evidence submitted by the Prosecution at the trial.
Knox’s lawyers are asking for an independent review of all the forensic and DNA evidence and claim that Knox was denied her basic rights during her four-day initial questioning. They also point to the fact that the Chief Prosecutor changed his mind several times during the trial with regard to a motive for the murder, eventually settling on a theory that Knox and Kercher simply hated each other. This theory was dismissed by the judges.
Lawyers for Raffaele Sollecito, Knox’s former boyfriend, are also appealing and claim that the crime scene was not properly secured immediately after the murder. The house where Knox and Kercher lived was broken into twice while it was still officially a crime scene. Sollecito’s lawyers are also asking for a third-party review of the DNA evidence, as they believe that the bra clasp containing DNA evidence linking Sollecito to the murder could have been contaminated .
Meanwhile, in a surprise move, the Prosecution itself has also appealed against Knox’s sentence, stating that the “punishment should fit the crime” and that she should have received a life sentence.
Knox’s appeal will probably be heard in October.
Here Barbara Latza Nadeau, the author of “Angel Face” , a new book about Amanda Knox, talks about the case:
Do you think Knox should have received a life sentence?
