Knox Appeal: Resumes Today After Summer Recess

With the verdict in the appeals trails of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito expected at the end of this month, tensions are high on both sides. After a summer recess, the trial continued today with the prosecution questioning the court appointed forensics experts regarding their results of two key pieces of DNA evidence that helped convict Knox and her former boyfriend of murdering Meredith Kercher back in 2007. Knox arrived at the courtroom today looking anxious and drawn.

In their 145-page report to the court, the experts—Carla Vecchiotti and Stefano Conti—questioned much of the evidence that was collected in that original investigation, saying procedures to obtain it fell below international standards and may have led to contamination.

Questioned today over the extraction of DNA profiles from the bra clasp, Carla Vecchiotti said the data was so mixed that a very high number of genetic profiles could be extracted, depending how one combined the data “I could find yours, too,” Vecchiotti told the presiding judge. “I’m there, too,” she said, adding that some data was compatible with her own DNA. This was a bizarre comment by Vecchiotti, which if we take what she said at face value could call into question her own methods and possible contamination on her part. However, she was most likely facetiously stating that there were a number of profiles on the clasp. She added that Kercher’s profile was the only certain one.

The prosecution and Kercher family lawyer, Francesco Maresca, are now in a touchy situation as they are forced to attack the reputations of the court appointed experts, which might be viewed as an attack upon Judge Claudio Pratillo Hellmann—who appointed them.


The key witness today was Dr. Patrizia Stefanoni, the police forensic scientist who carried out the original investigation, defended the collection procedures used and the results obtained. Dr. Stefanoni told the court that DNA analyses were carried out from behind a glass wall to avoid the risk of contamination. She also said some of the standard protocols cited by the experts were published after she finished her report in May 2008, also pointing out that there are no internationally accepted international protocols for DNA collection. Using some of the 119 PowerPoint slides she said she had prepared, she challenged the experts' finding over DNA quantity, analysis and evidence collection techniques. Dr. Stefanoni’s testimony will continue Tuesday, where she is expected to defend her team's handling of the bra clasp among other things.

After the session, Maresca commented to CNN reporters regarding Dr. Stefanoni’s testimony today. “Stefanoni has thoroughly and calmly clarified the principal elements of the work she carried out—in a clear manner, given the complex subject…during the examination at the time…I think she managed to get the court’s full attention and to have damaged the independent forensic work.”

Just ahead of the hearing, in a letter (Read complete letter HERE) released by Francesco Maresca, Kercher’s sister, Stephanie, wrote: “In these last few weeks we have been left seriously anxious and greatly troubled by the news regarding the original DNA findings. It is extremely difficult to understand how the results, which were obtained with great care and presented in the original trial as valid, could now be regarded as irrelevant.”


Stephanie Kercher concluded by writing, “My sister, a daughter brutally and selfishly taken from us nearing 4 years ago…and yet a not a single day goes by that we can grasp any peace or closure…We ask that the Court of Appeal assess every single (piece) of evidence, both scientific and circumstantial, as well as any witnesses who have taken the stand independently of any other information or media,” she wrote.

Continuing her verbal campaign to free her daughter, Knox’s mother, Edda Mellas commented on the contents of the Kercher letter: “I saw in her letter where she stated that it [the evidence] was collected appropriately,” Mellas, told ABC News. “Well, perhaps they should go and review the crime scene videos, because clearly it was not.”

The appeals hearings are expected to continue through the week. After rebuttals later in September, an appeals verdict is expected by the end of the month.

Knox Battles Lifetime; Knox’s Parents Battle Libel

Not many fireworks on this 4th of July for Amanda Knox and her parents in court. Both Amanda Knox and her parents entered separate Italian courtrooms to do battle on Monday: Amanda in Perugia’s civil court for the second hearing of her case against producers of Lifetime’s made-for-television movie about the case, and her parents fighting defamation charges for an interview that they gave Britain’s Sunday Times back in 2008 where they claiming that their daughter was abused by police during her interrogation.


Amanda arrived amidst a bevy of reporters, but side-stepped them as the van carrying her backed into a side entrance of the courthouse, concealing her from the public. Amanda’s hearing was a closed-door session that lasted just a half-hour. The session was cut-short as the producers of the movie—“Amanda Knox: Murder on Trial in Italy,” starring Hayden Panettiere as Knox—did not show up. Knox’s lawyers said in the first hearing in March that the movie had caused their client “very serious, irreparable damage,” and they are asking for more than $4 million in reparation. The judge, Teresa Giardino, did not set a definitive date for the next hearing, claiming that the court would need to contact the producers of the movie.

Earlier in the day, in another courthouse in Perugia, Edda Mellas and Curt Knox appeared in criminal court for the beginning of their trial, facing libel charges brought on by five Perugia police officers. In an even quicker hearing than Amanda’s, judge, Paolo Micheli, opened the hearing by postponing it, saying that he was recusing himself from the case. This request was made by the defense at the indictment, citing a conflict because Micheli is the same judge who indicted Knox and Sollecito in 2008. This process is sure to drag on, as Micheli set the next hearing date for 24 January 2012, at 11:00a.m., before an unnamed judge. Edda’s current husband, Chris Mellas, watched the proceedings from the public section of the tiny courtroom. Neither Curt Knox nor the police officers were present at this hearing.

A Future Projection of Rudy Guede’s Highly Anticipated Testimony on 6/27/11

(Click HERE for all details on Monday's hearing)

The presiding judge in the Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito appeals trial, Judge Claudio Pratillo Hellman, has order Rudy Guede to testify on 27 June 2011. Judge Hellman ordered Guede’s testimony in response to the testimony of Mario Alessi at the last hearing. On the stand, Alessi told the court that Guede told him that Knox and Sollecito are innocent, when they allegedly spoke in a prison conversation back in November 2009.

Guede was sentenced to 30 years for his role in the murder of Meredith Kercher, and he took the stand at Knox and Sollecito’s original trial, but refused to testify, as his appeal was still pending. Subsequently, Guede’s sentence was reduced to 16 years upon appeal and Italy’s Supreme Court of Cassation upheld the verdict. So, since Guede no longer faces any further legal implications from any future statements, what will he say in his upcoming testimony?

It is clear that Guede was angered by Alessi’s statements, misquoting his involvement, if a conversation of this nature ever took place to begin with. Nonetheless, in a letter written by Guede on 3 July 2010—in response to Alessi’s claims—he wrote:

“It must be said that all I have heard in recent days in the media, about what has been falsely stated by this foul being by the name of Mario Alessi, whose conscience is nothing but stinking garbage, are purely and simply the ravings of a sick and twisted mind, his ravings are the dreamed-up, untrue declarations of a monster who sullied himself with a frightful murder in which he took the life of an angelic little human being…[Alessi] is telling lies about things that I never said to him…”

Guede closed the letter by writing:

“And finally I wish that sooner or later the judges will recognize my complete non-involvement in what was the horrible murder of the splendid, magnificent girl who was Meredith Kercher, by Raffaelle Sollecito and Amanda Knox.”

Back in 2009, Amanda Knox’s mother, Edda Mellas, claimed—on the Larry King Live Show—that:

“when he [Guede] was on the run and police were secretly wiretapping him, and he was talking to a friend of his, the friend said, ‘you know, they think Amanda was there,’ and he goes, ‘oh, I know who Amanda is and she was absolutely not there’” (Minute 3:28).

But this is a clearly false statement by Mellas, one of several she has made throughout this process. There were two calls made by Guede, both via Skype, which were recorded by police while he was on the run. In the first conversation, Guede claimed that he “wasn’t even there” at the cottage on the night of the murder. In the second conversation, Guede was reading a newspaper excerpt regarding the murder, which mentioned a rumor that Meredith’s clothes were put in the washing machine after she was murdered. In response to this, Guede says to his friend, “so if that really did happen, Amanda or Raffaele did it. Do you understand? That must have been them, if it really happened.” Guede explains to his friend that Meredith was “dressed” when he last saw her; “she had a pair of jeans on and a white shirt and a woolen thing.”


The calling of Alessi to the stand by the defense may have backfired on them in a major way. Now, Guede will take the stand, and there is a possibility that his unbridled testimony will be requested by Judge Hellman (i.e. his testimony on all facets of the story, not just a rebuttal to Alessi's accusations). This could spell disaster for the two defendants; however, it is very likely that if Guede sways from his original version, he may not be seen as a credible witness.

Out of the three suspects in the case—Knox, Guede, and Sollecito—Guede has told the most credible version of events. This is not to say that his version is credible, by any stretch of the imagination; but compared to Knox and Sollecito’s many versions, Guede’s comes off sounding the best, in my opinion. So, the question remains: what will Guede say on the stand come Monday?

Guede’s Version:

Aside from the one Skype conversation that Guede had with a friend, which was recorded by police (detailed above as the “first” conversation), Guede has always maintained the same story. In a nutshell, Guede has said that he had met Meredith on a few occasions prior to Halloween. According to Guede, it was on Halloween night that he and Meredith planned to meet up the next night at the cottage. Once there, Guede claims that he and Meredith got to talking and fooled around a bit. Guede claims that they both wanted to have sex, but had no condoms, so he resisted.

Also, Guede said that Meredith had been upset at some point when she checked her underwear drawer—where she normally hid her money—and found that her money had been missing, and she suspected that Amanda may have taken it. According to Guede, Meredith shouted, “The money is gone! The money is gone! When Amanda comes back, I have to talk to her.” Guede said that Meredith informed him that she and Amanda had been quarrelling a lot about issues that she had with Amanda.


Guede then said that he went to the bathroom for about five-minutes or so. In that time he claims that he heard the doorbell ring and then minutes later he heard a “really loud scream” (all while he was listening to music on his iPod). Guede then asserted that he got worried and rushed out of the bathroom to see what the fuss was, not even pulling his pants up all the way in his haste. When he got closer to Meredith’s room he saw a man, but didn’t get a good look at him because it was so dark.

Guede could tell that the man was Italian because he didn’t have an accent. Guede explained that he and the man wrestled a bit before the man fled, screaming, “Black man found guilty!” He tried to save her, but she was bleeding very badly. Fearing that the police would not believe his story and think that he did it, Guede fled into the night, leaving poor Meredith Kercher to drown in her own blood.

Prediction:

Guede will likely stick to this story, if he will even have a chance to get to it, or he risks losing credibility. This may all be premature, however, as the judge may only allow the avvocatos (lawyers) to question Guede in regard to Alessi’s testimony. It is unlikely that Judge Hellman will allow the testimony at length, but if he does; this might be a very big turning point in the outcome of this trial.


Get the complete details...Purchase your copy NOW through AMAZON

Don’t Let the Truth Get in the Way of a Good Story: 10 False Claims on the Knox Case

In light of the recent indictment on Amanda Knox’s parents for defamation, it seems only fair to illuminate further the many false statements made by the Knox family and others. These untrue statements below are only a few of the many that have been asserted throughout this process and are not related to their indictment; they instead show the pattern of rhetoric over the last few years regarding the case. The underlying point in this story is the America media’s obsession with not letting the truth get in the way of a good story.

One might think that the family has simply innocently mistaken the facts of the case after this post, but remember that the Knox family hired David Marriott of Gogerty Stark Marriott, a Seattle, Washington (US) based publication relations consultant, soon after the charges against their daughter. Their public relations campaign has been predicated on the notions that there was no evidence against Amanda, and an inferior Italian justice system; the American media bought it hook line and sinker.

The validity and veracity of any of these statements can be checked by viewing either of the two Italian judge’s reports on the case: (Micheli Sentencing Report of 26 January 2009) and (Massei Sentencing Report of March 2010)

Let’s take a look at some examples:



False claims # 1 - 3: “His [Rudy Guede’s] DNA was in her [Kercher’s] purse, after the crime he all of a sudden had money that he didn’t have earlier in the day…when he was on the run and police were secretly wiretapping him, and he was talking to a friend of his, the friend said, ‘you know, they think Amanda was there,’ and he goes, ‘oh, I know who Amanda is and she was absolutely not there’” (Minute 3:16 above)

FACT: Somehow, Edda was creatively able to squeeze 3 completely false statements into a very short amount of time. The first is a completely false statement with no proof to back this up. No evidence was ever provided, nor was ever even brought up at any hearing in the case, from the prosecution or the defense, indicating that Guede had stolen Meredith’s money. The second: Guede’s DNA was found on the zipper of Kercher’s purse, not inside of it.

And the third: the transcript of that call to a friend that Guede made while unknowingly being recorded by police shows that Guede claimed not even to be there that evening. How could he say Amanda was “absolutely not there” if he himself claimed not to be there? Rubbish, as they say in the UK! Moreover, in the only other coversation that Guede had with a friend that was recorded by police, he says, "...Amanda or Raffaele did it."

False claim # 4: “They believe Meredith was killed at about 9.30pm” on Larry King Live (minute 1:37 above)

FACT: Knox’s mother makes this statement in order to explain that Amanda and Raffaele were at his apartment as late as 9:15p.m., and they could not have killed Meredith by 9:30p.m. Perugia Police Pathologist, Dr. Luca Lalli, was the first to examine the body. Italian coroner, Francesco Introna, also examined the body. Professor Introna concluded that the initial attack took place sometime between 9:30p.m., and 10:30p.m., and Dr. Lalli determined that Kercher’s time of death came between 8:00p.m., and 4:00a.m., on November 1, 2007 and November 2, 2007. Raffaele's flat was about a 10 minute walk from the cottage.



False claim # 5: “The prosecution had to admit that there was no physical evidence” (Minute 4:29 above)

FACT: The prosecution took nearly five-months indentifying and laying out the evidence against Knox and Sollecito during the trial, using the testimony of several specialists to prove the validity of the evidence. Not once has the prosecution made the claim that they had no evidence, physical or otherwise.



False claim # 6: Michael Archer – “There’s no evidence that brings Amanda into this crime scene; there’s no footprints, there’s no blood of hers there, there’s no biological fluids of her there; it perplexes me to see how they achieved a conviction” (minute 5:37 above).

FACT: Mr. Archer, who has consulted with the Knox family and is somehow listed as a forensic scientist, should be ashamed of himself for claiming to have “reviewed the [case] report” and misrepresenting the facts as he has above. You can either come to two conclusions regarding Mr. Archer’s statements here: he is either being paid by the Knox family to misrepresent the facts, or he is simply not a good forensic scientist and his reading comprehension is poor at best.

After CNN legal analyst, Lisa Bloom, points out that there was DNA of Amanda’s in the bathroom, Mr. Archer then says, “for Amanda’s DNA to be in her own bathroom…is not evidence of guilt of a murder” (minute 7:30 above). He has clearly made up his mind here and is not going to be swayed by the truth of the evidence, nor is he going to even acknowledge that there was a mix of Knox and Kercher’s blood in 3 spots in the house as well as footprints tracked by Knox in Meredith’s blood.

False claim 7: Anne Bremner, Spokesperson for ‘Friends of Amanda’ – “There is no evidence of Amanda Knox at the actual crime scene.” (minute 1:02 above)

FACT: The crime scene involves the whole cottage and it isn’t limited simply to Meredith’s room. Knox and Sollecito were both convicted based on their staging of the break-in and tampering with the crime scene. Moreover, there is plenty of evidence actually placing Amanda Knox in Meredith’s room on the night of the murder: the double DNA knife, and the blood she tracked into the bathroom, the hallway, Filomena’s room, and her own room. According to two imprint experts, there was a woman’s bloody shoeprint on the pillow under Meredith’s body which matched Knox’s foot size. Even Sollecito’s forensic consultant, Professor Vinci, claimed that he had found Amanda Knox’s DNA on Meredith’s bra.

Guede’s footprints went straight from Meredith’s room to the front door of the cottage. There is no physical evidence indicating that Guede went into either Filomena’s room or the bathroom used by both Knox and Kercher. “…Rudy, who, on leaving Meredith’s room (according to what the shoe prints show), directed himself towards the exit without deviating or stopping in other rooms” (Massei, pg. 379). Guede could not have staged the break-in or cleaned the cottage after the murder. Moreover, the clean-up and staged break-in benefited Knox and Sollecito more; accroding to Judge Massie, “...without which, lacking signs of forced entry at the door, Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito would have been the first under suspicion” (Massei, pg. 88).



False claim # 8: Peter Van Sant, 48 Hours Correspondent – “Why would Amanda Knox lie to police [regarding her signed confession]? Well it turns out that her ‘so called’ confession came after an all night 14 hour interrogation in which she was denied food, water, sleep, and legal representation” (minute 1:06 above).

FACT: Shame on you Peter Van Sant, 48 Hours Correspondent! Her questioning began at 11:00p.m., on the 5th and ended at 5:45a.m., on the 6th (Nov.), far from 14 hours. Moreover, Knox confessed to being in the house during the murder after only 2-plus hours, at which time she implicated Patrick Lumumba of being the murderer.

False claim # 9: Private investigator, Paul Ciolino – “Amanda and Raffaele never laid eyes on Rudy [Guede], never met with him, and never hung out with him—didn’t know him” (minute 2:34 above).

FACT: This is probably the most ridiculous statement of them all. This guy is a private investigator? He should keep his findings private! This program was aired on 19 June 2009, just seven days after Amanda testified at her own trial. Not only did Knox and Guede know each other, they met on more than one occasion, even smoked weed together—as testified to much earlier in the trial by all three Italian boys who lived downstairs from Meredith and Amanda. With just minimal research, Mr. Ciolino could have read the trial transcripts before completely discrediting himself and making himself look foolish.

Here’s the actual court transcript:

Carlo Pacelli (CP), Patrick Lumumba’s lawyer: Did you know Rudy Hermann Guede?
Amanda Knox (AK): Not much.
CP: In what circumstances did you meet him?
AK: I was in the center, near the church. It was during an evening when I met the guys that lived underneath in the apartment underneath us, and while I was mingling with them, they introduced me to Rudy.
CP: So it was on the occasion of a party at the house of the neighbors downstairs?
AK: Yes. What we did is, they introduced me to him [Rudy] downtown just to say “This is Rudy, this is Amanda”, and then I spent most of my time with Meredith, but we all went back to the house together.
CP: Did you also know him, or at least see him, in the pub “Le Chic”, Rudy?
AK: I think I saw him there once.
CP: Listen, this party at the neighbors, it took place in the second half of October? What period, end of October? 2007?
AK: I think it was more in the middle of October.

False claim # 10: Edda tells Linda Byron that Amanda hasn’t changed her story, in an interview with KING 5 News. Linda Byron: “Did she [Amanda] change her story?” Edda Mellas: “No, no. For this whole year they have maintained the story what they did that night. They stayed at Raffaele’s, they made dinner, they watched a movie. That’s it, that’s the story.”

FACT: Both Knox and Sollecito each gave three different alibis.

Knox's Parents Indicted for Slander

It seems that the lies of Amanda Knox’s parents, or at best their “false statements,” are finally catching up with them. About an hour ago Amanda Knox’s parents, Curt Knox and Edda Mellas, were indicted in an Italian court for slander. The charges stem from an interview they gave Britain’s Sunday Times in an interview published on 15 June 2008.

In it, Knox’s parents stated that—during Amanda’s 5 November 2007, interrogation—Amanda was interrogated by police for nine hours until she signed a statement at 5:54a.m.

FACT: the interrogation began at 12:30p.m., on the 5th and ended at 5:45a.m., on the 6th (5 hours and 15 minutes). Moreover, Knox confessed to being at the crime scene and implicated Patrick Lumumba after only an hour (1:30a.m.), at which time questioning was halted until Prosecutor Mignini was called in.

Another erroneous statement given by Knox’s parents during that interview was that—during that same interrogation—“no professional interpreter was present, only a police officer who could speak English and who was not always there.”

FACT: There was an interpreter at that interrogation, Anna Donnino, and she testified during the trial. Moreover, Amanda herself testified to the presence of Anna as the interpreter during that interrogation.

In that same article the dynamic-duo also said that “[Amanda] was given no food and no water for all the nine hours,” and she “was abused physically and verbally.” The couple did not attend today’s hearing, but Knox’s Lawyer, Luciano Ghirga, confirmed the indictment and said trial was set for 4 July 2011. Shockingly, a Knox family representative told various news sources that there would be no comment for the previously vocal duo.

Knox’s parents are being defended by lawyers Luciano Ghirga and Maria Del Grosso. Former Kercher family lawyer, Francesco Maresca, is representing the police officers who filed the charges. Amanda Knox’s own defamation trial resumes on 17 May 2011, and her appeal resumes on 12 March 2011.

Tearful Beginning: Knox up to Old Tricks

Today was the first formal hearing in the appeal against conviction for Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. No one is sure just how long the trial will be, but one thing is for sure; Amanda Knox has had enough of prison living. Knox, now 23, broke down several times as she delivered an emotional twenty-minute address to the court; her voice sometimes quavering as she claimed that she had nothing to do with Miss Kercher’s brutal death. Her nervous, rambling statement—reminiscent of the court address she made at her 4th preliminary hearing back on 18 October 2008—was once again a limited, evasive, non-explanation of an explanation. It was an “I didn’t do it but I am so sorry for Meredith and her family anyway” kind of address. The fragile yet defiant Knox insisted that she did not kill Kercher and pled with the judge and jury to give her back her “shattered life,” calling her conviction unjust and an “enormous mistake.”


On 2 December 2010, Meredith Kercher’s (the victim), father, John Kercher, wrote a letter in which he made a strong plea for the cruel, callous, and inaccurate PR games, of Knox’s family, to stop. The well informed Kercher family has remained singularly cool-headed, dignified, and truthful throughout. On the other hand, the Knox family has continued to lie about the basic facts of the case; and unlike Edda Mellas, Knox’s mother, they have read Judge Massei’s sentencing report.

During Knox’s address to the court, Kercher family lawyer, Francesco Maresca walked out of the courtroom. Maresca later said he left because he wasn’t interested in comments he felt were “inappropriate, out of place and untimely.”


She went on to apologize to the Congolese bar owner, Patrick Lumumba, who spent nearly three weeks in jail after Knox told police he had killed Kercher. Lumumba was later cleared of all connection to the crime.

“Patrick: I'm sorry,” she said, turning in the direction of the courtroom where he was sitting with his lawyers. “I was naive and not at all courageous because I should have put up with the pressure that pushed me to hurt you. You didn't deserve what you went through and I hope you are able to find your peace.”

In a break after Knox’s statement, Lumumba told reporters that he felt her apology lacked sincerity, however. “If she had said it to me in the first weeks, after I got out of isolation, and we were both going in front of the judge, well then I would have believed her. But now, three years later, well, it seems like strategy. It's as if she's playing a card game and she's losing, so she’s playing every card she's got.”

Knox’s lawyer, Carlo Dalla Vedova, in his formal requests later in the day, asked for a complete review of “dubious” forensics in the case, and criticized the first judge’s sentencing report as full of personal reflections and conjecture that resulted in “perhaps one of the biggest judicial errors to happen here in recent years.”


Lawyers for Knox and Sollecito requested the court hear testimony from two new witnesses, convicted child killer Mario Alessi, who was housed in a prison cell across from Rudy Guede and says he heard another version of what happened, and mafia snitch Luciano Aviello, who claims his own brother killed Kercher and asked him to hide the murder weapon. On Friday, Perugia police raided Aviello’s prison cell on the grounds that Aviello is slandering his brother with a false homicide accusation. Italian newspapers hinted that police had sequestered documents or letters from Aviello’s cell that show his story was fabricated, but the matter was not brought up in court.

The prosecution and civil parties give their arguments next Saturday (Dec. 18). Knox’s appellate trial is expected to last for several months, with hearings held only on Saturdays.

See video footage of today's hearing

Knox’s Parents Facing Jail Time

Amanda Knox turns 23 on July 9, 2010. It will be her third birthday in Capanne prison just outside Perugia, Italy. Today, however, Amanda Knox’s parents were not pleading for Amanda’s innocence, but they were pleading for their own. Edda Mellas and Curt Knox (Amanda’s biological parents) appeared in court today for their preliminary hearing. Twelve Perugia police officers had filed defamation-charges against the pair well over a year ago after they told the London Times in June 2008, that their daughter was struck by police during her November 5, 2007 interrogation. Surprisingly enough, the officers were represented in court today by Francesco Maresca--the lawyer who represented the Kercher family during Amanda and Raffaele’s murder trial.

The purpose of this hearing was to determine whether their was enough evidence against Amanda’s parents to proceed with a full trial. The hearing today did not bring good news, as it was determined that there is enough evidence to proceed. The trail is scheduled to begin in mid-October. Knox’s parents have been very outspoken critics of the Italian justice system. Italian law enforcement pushed back heavily today, and no doubt want the pair silenced. Regardless, Curt Kox is not backing down, saying that “With respect to Edda’s and my slander charges, I believe those will get thrown out and this is nothing more than a harassment.”

If convicted, Knox’s parents face heavy fines and up to 3 years in jail. It is unlikely that her parents will go to jail, although if up to the twelve police officers, they would. However, it is more likely that they will be slapped with heavy fines, and considering their financial hardships (regarding their constant traveling back and forth to see their daughter as well as Amanda’s extensive lawyer fees) these fines may be just as debilitating.