Amanda Knox is Convicted, Again, in Italy
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: Good evening. Tonight, the breaking news that plunges a young American woman back into the nightmare she thought she escaped. Inside the newest Amanda Knox verdict and the evidence with some called the bogus evidence behind it. Also tonight, the latest on the mess in Atlanta and how at least some of the officials who got it so wrong are now owning up to their mistakes. And later, he is the face of the deadly problem American combat vets who answered the call but can't get the VA to give them badly needed and in some cases life-saving medical care. We're keeping them honest. We begin tonight with breaking news. Amanda Knox convicted of murder for the second time.</s>COOPER: A judge in Florence, Italy reading the verdict. Knox and her former boyfriend, Raffaele Sollecito guilty of murder in the alleged drug and sexual stabbing death of Meredith Kercher. More than six years ago as one that occurred in the Italian town of Perugia. Now her sentence, 28 and a half years in prison, extradition a possibility, highly unlikely. Amanda Knox, if you recall, is already done hard time in Italy spending nearly four years in jail in prison until her first co conviction was overturned. She went home Seattle to try in live in normal life. She issued a statement this evening calling the verdict unjust, but hasn't spoken to cameras tonight. She did, however, talk with Britain's "Guardian Paper" earlier this week about what a guilty verdict would do to her.</s>AMANDA KNOX, CONVICTED MURDER IN ITALY: It would feel like a train wreck. They would order my arrest and the Italian government would approach the American government and say, extradite her and I don't know what would happen.</s>COOPER: Well, Knox has also spoken with "NEW DAY's" Chris Cuomo about the possibility of going back to prison.</s>CHRIS CUOMO, CNN HOST, NEW DAY: Could you do more time?</s>KNOX: Me? Could I do more time?</s>CUOMO: Could you handle it? Could you handle it?</s>KNOX: I'm having to handle things. I have not been given a choice, and I think people sort of underestimate what that means and what effect that has had on me and my life. I have no choice but to face this, and I constantly ask myself why, why me? I have no choice but to confront this. And I don't know. I'm afraid, I'm so afraid.</s>CUOMO: If you go back, you may not wind upcoming back to America for a very long time.</s>KNOX: Yes. And I'm afraid of that.</s>COOPER: Well, in her statement tonight, she says she's indeed frightened by what would come next, even if she never sets foot in Italy again. Now in a moment, we'll have more on the investigation that first landed her in prison and serious question about the evidence or lack of said evidence against her. First, Erin McLaughlin in Florence of what went in today's verdict and what could come next. So, explain what happened today in court. I mean, the verdict came far later than expected and talk about who this court is compared to other courts.</s>ERIN MCLAUGHLIN, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Hi, Anderson. We didn't really know what to expect from this court today going into this verdict. In the end, it took six jurors and two judges almost 12 hours to reach this decision when the presiding judge read the verdict out before a very packed courthouse, it was met with silence. Amanda Knox's lawyer later describing to CNN the moment he had to call his client in Seattle and inform her that once again she had been convicted of Meredith Kercher's death. Amanda Knox was understandably shocked, Anderson.</s>COOPER: So she can appeal, though. I mean, this is not it.</s>MCLAUGHLIN: She can absolutely appeal this decision. In fact, the defense has already said they are planning on doing that. They'll appeal the decision to Italy's Supreme Court. But keep in mind that is the same Supreme Court that overturned the 2011 acquittal decision. Basically in the prosecutor's words, raising it to the ground, saying it was full of contradictions and deficiencies, send thing trial back to Florence, urging them to take a comprehensive look at all of the evidence. So at the moment, things really aren't looking too good for Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. That appeals process so, Anderson, could take months.</s>COOPER: All right, Erin McLaughlin, appreciate the update. And her reaction to the verdict this evening, Amanda Knox called it the product of a quote "prejudice and narrow minded investigation." Drew Griffin has managed to re-trace the steps that investigators took and how it, what many believer, the mistake that were made along the way? He spent hours talking to the original lead prosecutor. It's a rare opportunity to decide for yourself whether he was a crusader for justice, we are talking about the prosecutor, as critics say, a man obsessed. Take a look.</s>DREW GRIFFIN, CNN INVESTIGATIVE CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Amanda Knox in this statement told police she was in the house the night of the murder and saw her boss, nightclub owner, Patrick Lumumba, and Meredith Kercher go into Meredith's room and she heard screams. Amanda's statement adds, I am very confused. I imagined what could have happened. Police apparently didn't bother to check the facts about Lumumba. They immediately arrested Amanda Knox, Raffaele Sollecito, and Patrick Lumumba for the murder of Meredith Kercher.</s>UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): After the first few weeks, we were convinced because of the behavior of the two people and especially Amanda, that they were both involved in the crime.</s>GRIFFIN: But almost immediately after the arrests, Manini had a problem. The third suspect, Patrick Lumumba, had an airtight alibi. He was in his crowded bar that night. He could not have been involved. Then the actual forensic tests came back.</s>GREG HAMPIKIAN, FORENSIC BIOLOGIST: When I looked at it, I was horrified.</s>GRIFFIN: Greg Hampikian is a forensic biologist at Boise State University and director of Idaho's innocence project. He says Italian investigators did a good job processing the crime scene, collected excellent evidence, but clung to shakier evidence that proved their theory. A classic error, says Hampikian, a prosecutor who trusted his gut feeling instead of the science that at that time was pointing to another suspect.</s>COOPER: That's Drew Griffin reporting. Now, the other suspect was a man named Rudy Guede, who was convicted and sent to prison. He implicated Knox and Sollecito, after which his sentence was reduced. Joining us now is Amanda Knox's attorney, Ted Simon and Greg Hampikian who you just saw in Drew's report. Ted, you saw this verdict as obviously a historic miscarriage of justice. What happens now? Because a lot of people are talking about her being extradited, but there's a lot of steps before anything like that. I mean, there's an appeal, correct?</s>THEODORE SIMON, AMANDA KNOX'S ATTORNEY: That's correct. And let's understand, some things haven't changed despite this unwelcomed verdict. You know, she was previously found innocent by another appellate court jury, not just not guilty, but actually found innocent. And that is why, when we think about that, and we realize there was no evidence back then and there's no different evidence today, why this is such a horrific miscarriage of justice, of really historic proportions. In fact, it's somewhat incomprehensible to understand how there can be a difference, how can there be a verdict other than what happened before?</s>COOPER: So, why do you think they made this decision, is it politics, face saving? What do you think?</s>SIMON: You know, look, the last appellate court jury did a searching inquiry, they reviewed all the evidence, independent experts were hired by the court that debunked the two key pieces of evidence, purportedly, you know, thought to be persuasive by the prosecution. They were eviscerated, evaporated, held to be without any probative value. And there was nothing else really in the case. So we left it to a discerning eye. But I can tell you, a careful review of the evidence, you have to ask yourself, how is it possible that an appellate court jury found her actually innocent and now another jury of equal stature has reviewed the evidence again and there's no new or different or favorable evidence? In fact, now the knife was retested and the prosecution was basically throwing a hail Mary pass, hoping that they would find Meredith Kercher's profile on the blade. In fact, it was determined that she absolutely was not on the blade, you know. There was a finding that Amanda Knox was on the knife, but that was already the case and she had used that knife. So there's nothing unusual or significant about it. It simply remains no evidence.</s>COOPER: Let me bring in Greg. Because, Greg, you went to Italy to aid the defense team. You looked at all the evidence. You know about the retesting of the knife in the second trial. Is there any doubt in your mind that Amanda Knox did not commit this crime?</s>HAMPIKIAN: No, there is never any doubt about this case. We disputed the DNA evidence at the very beginning that was used to convict her.</s>COOPER: What did they get wrong about the DNA evidence?</s>HAMPIKIAN: Well, what they did was, they went way below where we look, so there's a level at which we set our instruments for sensitivity. And you don't want to go below that, because, frankly, there's DNA that comes into lab and chemicals or on gloves or small bits of transfer that can occur. That's one of the reasons. But if you want to go that far down, you have to demonstrate through a validation process that you can. So the normal level for those instruments was at a level called 200 relative fluorescent unit. They took them down far below that. The FBI wouldn't even look at anything below 200 at that time to incriminate anybody. My lab would go maybe to 150. There was no DNA at that level. So we disputed it. The appellate court wisely said we're not going to hear from defense experts. We are not going to hear from the original prosecution experts. And the judge appointed two experts out of Rome, Italian experts. They independently tested the DNA evidence. And they agreed with the defense. And that's why she was freed. So science freed her.</s>SIMON: You know, Anderson --</s>COOPER: Ted, what happened now? I mean, where do you go now? Do you appeal?</s>SIMON: Well, yes. There's certainly an appeal. But you know, when you look at the case, and I know you're familiar with the case, and this was a horrific, bloody murder. And if Amanda had participated in any way, part of herself would have been left in the room or on the person of Meredith Kercher. No hair, fibers, footprint, shoeprint, handprint, palm print, sweat, DNA, saliva of any sort of Amanda Knox was found in that room. And you simply can't remove what you can't see. That in and of itself is absolutely unassailable, unquestioned evidence that shows she could not have been involved. That has never changed.</s>COOPER: Ted, what does it mean for Amanda Knox in terms of -- I mean, obviously she's not going to travel to Italy. That would not be wise. What about if she traveled somewhere outside of the United States, is that a concern?</s>SIMON: Well, you know, I know people ask a question ant extradition. But it's really not in play right now, because first of all, she has another appeal to the Supreme Court of Italy. In Italy, under their system, you're still actually presumed innocent until that third final stage.</s>COOPER: So they wouldn't request of extradition of her?</s>SIMON: No. It would be way, way premature. And the prosecution asked for cautionary or provisional arrest warrant today, it was rejected. The court recognized she's lawfully in the United States. She was never required to attend these proceedings, in this form of proceeding. So she has done everything lawful. Everything correct. She's abiding by all court orders, and her appearance then was not necessary, and it's not in issue today. If it ever becomes an issue, you can rest assured there are very substantial defenses that can be interposed. But, you know, I think we shouldn't get ahead of ourselves. The bottom line is, there is no evidence, there was no evidence, and there never will be any evidence, and that's why this is such a gross miscarriage of justice.</s>COOPER: Ted Simon, I'm glad to have you on. Greg --</s>HAMPIKIAN: In fact, they retested --</s>COOPER: Go ahead, Greg.</s>HAMPIKIAN: We in fact have new evidence, which is this test reported just in November, ordered by the court, which confirms once again that the evidence we disputed, the DNA was not reliable. There's no evidence of the victim on the knife. That's new, and that came out in November. For the court to ignore that and to increase her sentence when Rudy Guede, whose DNA is in the victim's body is all over that, his hand prints are there, they lowered his sentence. It has nothing to do with science.</s>COOPER: Yes, Rudy guide, they lowered his sentence. Ted Simon, Greg Hampikian, I do appreciate you guys being on. Thank you. You can follow me on twitter. Let me know what you think about this case @andersoncooper, the twitter hand out. Tweet me using #AC360. All right, up next, getting one of America's biggest cities rolling again, we'll take you out on the streets and show you how the public servant who has finally taking responsibility for one of the biggest traffic jams on record in city of Atlanta. And later, delays in diagnosis and treatment at VA hospitals. This is an important story. Veterans put their lives on the line for all of us and they are dying. We're "Keeping Them Honest."