TODAY | April 30, 2014
>> is amanda knox 's u.s. attorney . mr. simon, good morning to you.
>> good morning to you.
>> i know you spoke quite a bit to amanda yesterday after this reasoning came out. what's her state of mind? how's she feeling?
>> well, she's resolute. she's committed to righting this injustice. nothing has really changed. it certainly is disconcerting and disheartening and disturbing. there is no- new evidence. there is no evidence, there was no evidence, and there never will be any evidence.
>> for people looking at this and they keep hearing this court convicts, this court acquits. how do you explain a series of courts looking at the exact same evidence, as you say, and coming to wildly opposing opinions about it?
>> i know you're familiar with the case, and what we know is that there was a jury that conducted a searching inquiry into all the facts, and the absence of facts, and found unmistakably that she was innocent. that's an available verdict in italy. not simply not proven beyond a reasonable doubt , but actually innocent. and there was good reason for that because there's a profound absence of evidence . you know the facts of this case. you know it's alleged that it was a gruesome, bloody, horrific murder. yet, there was no hair, fiber, footprint, shoe print , hand print, palm print, fingerprint, sweat, saliva, dna of amanda knox in the room where meredith kercher was killed or on her person. that in and of itself tells you unassailably that she is innocent.
>> but now the court is going back to this old evidence that there's dna on the bra clasp that was found at amanda 's home. that there was something on the knife that was found in amanda 's home.
>> we know that those aspects were debunked. in the trial where she was found innocent, the court appointed two independent experts. these were not experts for amanda or for the government. they were independent. and they concluded that those two key pieces of evidence, the knife and bra clasp, were wholly without any prohibitive value. they were debunked, they were rejected.
>> couple things here. amanda has not been shy and she has not been diplomatic in her critique of the italian justice system . even if her feelings are completely understandable from her point of view, was that a strategic mistake?
>> i have to disagree. i think she's been eminently diplomatic.
>> she's called it biased, corrupt, and incompetent.
>> i would refer you to her recent statement. what she's simply saying is this ultimately makes no sense. i mean, how can you have a conviction when there's no physical evidence of herself in the room or on the person of meredith kercher . that in and of itself tells you it's an impossibility and there is no other compelling evidence to the contrary.
>> do you think it was a mistake to not have her present -- or let me ask it a different way, because it makes some sense that she wouldn't go back to italy. do you think the court held it against her that she wasn't there?
>> it's very hard to say, but i think whether she was there or not, there was certainly a question that if she was not there, there would be a greater focus on the absence, or more accurately the absence of evidence . and whether she was there or not should not have made a difference because there simply was no evidence. we have already -- always said, there is no evidence, there was no evidence, there never will be any evidence. she's resolute. her family is resolute to right this manifest injustice and return to the correct verdict. one of nuns